Subject: Re: wpi port -- Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG chipset.
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Rui Paulo <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/05/2006 22:30:20
At Mon, 5 Jun 2006 21:03:42 +0200,
Jean-Baptiste Campesato wrote:
> 2006/6/5, Rui Paulo <email@example.com>:
> > 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
> Sorry; I'm not working on.
> The wpi microcode licence seems different from the iwi microcode licence.
> The iwi firmware licence:
> The wpi firmware licence (at the bottom):
> 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 .
How does OpenBSD do it?
Maybe this issue should be directed to board@ or core@.
: 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.