[arch-dev-public] Wlan Linux Broadcom binary drivers
Hi http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php just found this on the net, would you guys like to see this drivers in core? If a native english speaker could look at the license of the binary blob on redistribution, we could integrate those drivers. I don't have such hardware, so someone else would need to test functionality. your opinions on it? greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org tpowa@archlinux.org
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php just found this on the net, would you guys like to see this drivers in core?
If a native english speaker could look at the license of the binary blob on redistribution, we could integrate those drivers.
I don't have such hardware, so someone else would need to test functionality. your opinions on it?
Looking at it, I noticed this in section 2.3 (b): 2.3. Restriction on Distribution. Licensee [snip] agrees to defend and indemnify Broadcom and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Software by the Licensee except as contemplated herein. That's a little bit scary, to me. And I also thought we wanted to get away from binary blobs and things like that, especially in core. Is there anything that this driver does that ndiswrapper does not? Something about that clause seems a little goofy to me. I'm fine with this, but I think we should steer away from it in core - only because ndiswrapper already covers this as far as I know. Opinions?
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php just found this on the net, would you guys like to see this drivers in core?
If a native english speaker could look at the license of the binary blob on redistribution, we could integrate those drivers.
I don't have such hardware, so someone else would need to test functionality. your opinions on it?
Looking at it, I noticed this in section 2.3 (b): 2.3. Restriction on Distribution. Licensee [snip] agrees to defend and indemnify Broadcom and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Software by the Licensee except as contemplated herein.
That's a little bit scary, to me. And I also thought we wanted to get away from binary blobs and things like that, especially in core.
Is there anything that this driver does that ndiswrapper does not?
Something about that clause seems a little goofy to me. I'm fine with this, but I think we should steer away from it in core - only because ndiswrapper already covers this as far as I know.
Opinions?
I'm also concerned by that clause. Perhaps it would be better to not include it in any repo just to be safe. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php just found this on the net, would you guys like to see this drivers in core?
If a native english speaker could look at the license of the binary blob on redistribution, we could integrate those drivers.
I don't have such hardware, so someone else would need to test functionality. your opinions on it?
Looking at it, I noticed this in section 2.3 (b): 2.3. Restriction on Distribution. Licensee [snip] agrees to defend and indemnify Broadcom and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Software by the Licensee except as contemplated herein.
That's a little bit scary, to me. And I also thought we wanted to get away from binary blobs and things like that, especially in core.
Is there anything that this driver does that ndiswrapper does not?
Something about that clause seems a little goofy to me. I'm fine with this, but I think we should steer away from it in core - only because ndiswrapper already covers this as far as I know.
Opinions?
I'm also concerned by that clause. Perhaps it would be better to not include it in any repo just to be safe.
I agree. My interpretation is something like: if someone sues Broadcom over these drivers, you guys have to pay court costs.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 5:27 PM, Eric Belanger <belanger@astro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 5 Oct 2008, Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Tobias Powalowski <t.powa@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php just found this on the net, would you guys like to see this drivers in core?
If a native english speaker could look at the license of the binary blob on redistribution, we could integrate those drivers.
I don't have such hardware, so someone else would need to test functionality. your opinions on it?
Looking at it, I noticed this in section 2.3 (b): 2.3. Restriction on Distribution. Licensee [snip] agrees to defend and indemnify Broadcom and its licensors from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any and all Software by the Licensee except as contemplated herein.
That's a little bit scary, to me. And I also thought we wanted to get away from binary blobs and things like that, especially in core.
Is there anything that this driver does that ndiswrapper does not?
Something about that clause seems a little goofy to me. I'm fine with this, but I think we should steer away from it in core - only because ndiswrapper already covers this as far as I know.
Opinions?
I'm also concerned by that clause. Perhaps it would be better to not include it in any repo just to be safe.
I agree. My interpretation is something like: if someone sues Broadcom over these drivers, you guys have to pay court costs.
In fact that is what it says, "someone using your package sues broadcom and you are going down, pay all court cost." Silly licenses, and to think we do not read every license there is, even though they can have such hidden evilness. /me checks all the licenses on his software.
On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree. My interpretation is something like: if someone sues Broadcom over these drivers, you guys have to pay court costs.
Yep, that's exactly what it's saying. Now whether or not Broadcom would ever do such a thing remains to be seen, but that's a helluva liability to pass onto the distributor.
participants (5)
-
Aaron Griffin
-
Eduardo Romero
-
Eric Belanger
-
Thayer Williams
-
Tobias Powalowski