Hi,
built a kernel module for: Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux device driver for use with Broadcom's - BCM4311 - BCM4312 - BCM4321 - and BCM4322 based hardware.
tested on 11.1 and works as expected.
but I still have some questions:
- Is it allowed to build non GPL'd RPM's , or have I to remove it ? - If it is allowed, is there a way to force user to accept license, before installing the package ? license is telling something about non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free license
Module can be found there:
home:computersalat:KMP
Kind regards Chris
Christian escribió:
- Is it allowed to build non GPL'd RPM's , or have I to remove it ?
Non-GPL compatible modules forbidden AFAIK.
Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
Christian escribió:
- Is it allowed to build non GPL'd RPM's , or have I to remove it ?
Non-GPL compatible modules forbidden AFAIK.
Indeed, you are not allowed to build that on the OBS. Anyway, it is already being built on Packman and works: http://packman.links2linux.org/package/broadcom-wl
Regards,
Tejas
Indeed, you are not allowed to build that on the OBS. Anyway, it is already being built on Packman and works: http://packman.links2linux.org/package/broadcom-wl
Packman unfortunately lacks Factory support....
On 12/23/2008 at 2:25 AM, Christian chris@computersalat.de wrote:
Hi,
built a kernel module for: Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux device driver for use with Broadcom's
- BCM4311
- BCM4312
- BCM4321
- and BCM4322 based hardware.
tested on 11.1 and works as expected.
but I still have some questions:
- Is it allowed to build non GPL'd RPM's , or have I to remove it ?
- If it is allowed, is there a way to force user to accept license,
before installing the package ? license is telling something about non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free license
Module can be found there:
A pity, this driver will probably be removed soon from the servers again...
The license from the Makefile is everything else than clear: this is GPL and just a few sentences down 'this is unpublished proprietary software'... they should decide on that.
I would be looking forward to help out for this driver (personal interest, as I have a bcm4328 in my notebook.. and ndiswrapper suxx)
Dominique
Hi Dominique,
A pity, this driver will probably be removed soon from the servers again...
yes, what a pity.
The license from the Makefile is everything else than clear: this is GPL and just a few sentences down 'this is unpublished proprietary software'... they should decide on that.
I would be looking forward to help out for this driver (personal interest, as I have a bcm4328 in my notebook.. and ndiswrapper suxx)
Isn't there a possibilty to force user to accept license before using ? ubuntu 8.10 does have something similar. It points out having a "proprietary" driver and asks user to "activate" this driver. Good idea.
And if I do not publish, just build ? And publish it on my website ? What do you think about that ?
Dominique
Chris
.debs can be interactive during installation, while rpms cannot. It's one of the big differences between the formats. So you can force license acceptance with .debs, but not .rpms unless you make an installer that actually checks for licenses that need acceptance for rpms.
On Tue, 2008-12-23 at 15:23 +0000, Christian wrote:
Hi Dominique,
A pity, this driver will probably be removed soon from the servers again...
yes, what a pity.
The license from the Makefile is everything else than clear: this is GPL and just a few sentences down 'this is unpublished proprietary software'... they should decide on that.
I would be looking forward to help out for this driver (personal interest, as I have a bcm4328 in my notebook.. and ndiswrapper suxx)
Isn't there a possibilty to force user to accept license before using ? ubuntu 8.10 does have something similar. It points out having a "proprietary" driver and asks user to "activate" this driver. Good idea.
And if I do not publish, just build ? And publish it on my website ? What do you think about that ?
Dominique
Chris
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 10:59:26 am Luke Imhoff wrote:
.debs can be interactive during installation, while rpms cannot. It's one of the big differences between the formats. So you can force license acceptance with .debs, but not .rpms unless you make an installer that actually checks for licenses that need acceptance for rpms.
I don't know how deb format works, but rpm can run preinstallation script and it is up to the packager how it will be used. User can be asked any kind of question before installation and proceed depending on the answer.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 05:33:43AM -0600, Rajko M. wrote:
On Tuesday 23 December 2008 10:59:26 am Luke Imhoff wrote:
.debs can be interactive during installation, while rpms cannot. It's one of the big differences between the formats. So you can force license acceptance with .debs, but not .rpms unless you make an installer that actually checks for licenses that need acceptance for rpms.
I don't know how deb format works, but rpm can run preinstallation script and it is up to the packager how it will be used. User can be asked any kind of question before installation and proceed depending on the answer.
Our installers make EULA / License acceptance possible by entries in the Meta Data format (repo-md).
However, the driver is deemed illegal in itself, so a license will not help. (The distributor of the RPMs is likely liable then, not the downloader.)
Ciao, Marcus
On Dienstag 23 Dezember 2008 02:25:11 Christian wrote:
Hi,
built a kernel module for: Broadcom's IEEE 802.11a/b/g/n hybrid Linux device driver for use with Broadcom's
- BCM4311
- BCM4312
- BCM4321
- and BCM4322 based hardware.
tested on 11.1 and works as expected.
but I still have some questions:
- Is it allowed to build non GPL'd RPM's , or have I to remove it ?
means non-GPL also closed source ?
In that case, yes it is forbidden. There are two exceptions:
- firmware binaries are allowed. - You may get it as official supported NonFree package. Please make a request via bugzilla for for this. However, if it is legal wise incompatible with the kernel (GPL) code, I doubt that it will get accepted.
- If it is allowed, is there a way to force user to accept license,
before installing the package ? license is telling something about non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-free license
Yes, but only via creating a product media. So it takes some more effort.
Module can be found there:
home:computersalat:KMP
Kind regards Chris
* Adrian Schröter [2009-01-07 11:35]:
means non-GPL also closed source ?
In that case, yes it is forbidden.
What about fonts, BTW? On CTAN you can find lots of fonts that are ok to redistribute but not available in source form. Even I think the URW+ fonts in Ghostscript are not "open source" or GPL, but I'm not sure.
Bernhard
buildservice@lists.opensuse.org
-
Adrian Schröter -
Bernhard Walle -
Christian -
Cristian Rodríguez -
Dominique Leuenberger -
Luke Imhoff -
Marcus Meissner -
Rajko M. -
Tejas Guruswamy