[RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
I am looking for discussion about a possibly controversially licensed package
in development, firmware-ipw2200.
License: Intel license
firmware-ipw2200 - Intel Pro/Wireless 2200/2915 802.11 Driver Firmware
This package contains the firmware for the open source Intel
Pro/Wireless Driver for 2200/2195 802.11 devices (ipw2200).
firmware-ipw2200 cannot be installed without seeing and agreeing
with the Intel license. A debconf driven front-end facilitates the
end user license agreement process upon installation. If the license
is not agreed to, firmware-ipw2200 will abort installation.
The ./debian/README.Maintainer file explains the constraints dictated by
I am a package maintainer and I would like to create a package/distribution/CD
that installs/provides the Intel firmware necessary for the ipw2100 and
ipw2200 projects. How does one go about doing this according to Intel's
There are three key actions that must be performed:
1. Generally distributors alert end users to the fact that components of a
package may be covered under a variety of licenses, the specific terms of
which vary. Some distributors use an initial license page during the OS
install that informs the user that various components are governed by a
variety of licenses, and use of the components is subject to the user's
compliance with the various licensing requirements. Other package systems
support an interactive package approach that requires the user to view and
accept the license before they can install it, etc.
2. Any description within the package must indicate that the package is
covered by the Intel license, and provide the user with information on how to
access that license -- making it clear that the user is not granted a license
to use the package unless these terms are agreed to.
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
EULA handling follows the lead of sun-java packaging.
Can the package qualify for inclusion in non-free?
Please CC: me with replies.