Re: Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?

[Kel Modderman <kel@otaku42.de>]

Hi Mike,

>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am looking for discussion about a possibly controversially licensed package 
>> in development, firmware-ipw2200.
>> 
>> License: Intel license
>> 
>> http://bughost.org/firmware/LICENSE.ipw2200-fw
>
>Last time I looked at this license, when I was the ipw2200 package maintainer,
>it would not allow inclusing in non-free.

Is that still the case in your opinion? Or have the terms changed significantly
enough from last time you read the license, and now it is possibly fit for
non-free?

>
>>    3. The package must install the LICENSE file in the same location on the
>> system that the firmware files are installed. If it is standard practice in 
>> your distribution to place all license files in a centralized location (for 
>> example /usr/share/license), then you are free to place a copy of the license 
>> in that location, in addition to placing it in the directory containing the 
>> firmware files.
>
>This is sooooooo stupid. How about the same terms used by another firmware ?
>That leads to several packages needing to install the same file, since
>the directory containing the firmware files is the same.

I agree it is stupid.

Is this point really valid though?  The file is actually named LICENSE.ipw2200-fw,
which is unique enough, and the license does not dictate the name of the
installed file, but only its location and content.

Thanks, Kel.