Re: broadcom proposed firmware licence, please comment ...
On Tue, 31 May 2005 22:32:30 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Andres Salomon wrote:
>> As I remember, upstream (jgarzik/davem) was not overly interested in such
>> a patch to tg3. Is this still the case, or are they amenable to such
>> changes?
>
> Upstream was not interested in legal niceties like including copyright
> statements, either. I suppose both are still the case.
Feh, copyright. Overrated! :)
Anyways, davem's been pretty receptive to our requests recently; he seems
to want debian to actually work on his sparcs.
>
> I think they said they'd accept a patch which loaded the firmware but fell
> back to firmware built into the kernel if it wasn't present, as a
> "transitional" requirement. Ugh squared. But I can do it; I can even do
> it in such a way that the tg3 patch to the kernel would consist of a single
> file deletion.
Are they looking for a transition, or are they just looking for proof that
the firmware loading will actually work? Transition code doesn't sound
overly useful to me.
Keep in mind the patch we'd have would have to simply readd the tg3
driver; the patch can't delete the file. As such, it would still need to
be maintained (although shouldn't be too complex, as long as it doesn't
include firmware loading features and such).
>
>> I'd rather not maintain a tg3 patch again, if possible.
> I understand. :-(
Reply to: