At Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:03:42 +0200,
Jean-Baptiste Campesato wrote:
> 
> 2006/6/5, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@fnop.net>:
> > Thanks! Is the microcode license different from ipw or iwi ? If so we
> > must add a new pkgsrc license before creating a package.
> > Are you working on wpi-firmware pkg and ipw3945d pkg ?
> 
> We don't need a ipw3945d package (it's a regulatory daemon for Linux),
> only a microcode package which contains "ipw3945.ucode" and put it in
> /usr/pkg/libdata/if_wpi/ipw3945.ucode
> 
> Sorry; I'm not working on.
> 
> The wpi microcode licence seems different from the iwi microcode licence.
> The iwi firmware licence:
>  http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=5
> The wpi firmware licence (at the bottom):
>  http://bughost.org/ipw3945/ucode/README.ipw3945-ucode
> Somebody can confirm?

Another idea would be to include the ucode in base. It seems that ath
microcode has a similar license and we have it in base [0].

How does OpenBSD do it?

Maybe this issue should be directed to board@ or core@.

[0]: I've been told that by including it in CVS would be considered a
modification. If this is true, we could make the binary file a C
array, include that file in the CVS tree and then build the original
binary file that way. IANAL.