Arch Linux

Stoffi

Member

From: Various places in Norway

Registered: 2007-03-15

Posts: 107

b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

I was wondering if the b43-fwcutter package could (and should?) be changed so that it includes the firmware also?
this would ofcourse need the creation of a new package, b43-fwcutter-legacy.

Stoffi

wonder

Developer

From: Bucharest, Romania

Registered: 2006-07-05

Posts: 5,937

Website

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

the license of firmware couldn't permit distribution. read
http://wireless.kernel.org/en/users/Dri … stallation

"Please note that the firmware from the binary drivers is Copyrighted by Broadcom Corporation and must not be redistributed"

Last edited by wonder (2008-07-14 22:03:13)

---

Give what you have. To someone, it may be better than you dare to think.
Blog

Stoffi

Member

From: Various places in Norway

Registered: 2007-03-15

Posts: 107

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

I thought pacman could download directly from any site?
Isn't this what pacman does when I am using yaourt?

Will this not work around this licence issue?

Mr.Elendig

#archlinux@freenode channel op

From: The intertubes

Registered: 2004-11-07

Posts: 3,528

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

I thought pacman could download directly from any site?
Isn't this what pacman does when I am using yaourt?

Will this not work around this licence issue?

That is not how it works.

1. You are not using pacman with aur. Pacman does not handle aur. Yaourt is a bash script that, when used with aur, downloads and extract an PKGBUILD(and some optional files), calls makepkg to create/build a pkg, and then calls pacman to install the pkg.

2. core, extra and community are pre-built binaries only. All the contents of the pkg's are stored inside the pkg itself, nothing is downloaded from an external source.

---

Evil #archlinux@freenode channel op and general support dude.
. files on github, Screenshots, Random pics and the rest

Stoffi

Member

From: Various places in Norway

Registered: 2007-03-15

Posts: 107

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

So, it could still work, but only as an aur PKGBUILD?

(I am not saying that anyone shoud make such a pkgbuild.)

tomk

Forum Fellow

From: Ireland

Registered: 2004-07-21

Posts: 9,604

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

There are various ways you could make it work, but this kind of automation is not considered necessary in Arch. Obtaining the files required by the cutter utility is the user's responsibility - once that is done, the procedure couldn't be simpler.

Stoffi

Member

From: Various places in Norway

Registered: 2007-03-15

Posts: 107

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

So, you say that even if the firmware didn't have this restrictive licence, it shouldn't be included in the package?
I think not, but that is all I can do about that.

iphitus

Forum Fellow

From: Melbourne, Australia

Registered: 2004-10-09

Posts: 4,927

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

So, you say that even if the firmware didn't have this restrictive licence, it shouldn't be included in the package?
I think not, but that is all I can do about that.

No, if the firmware were legally distributable, it'd be distributed. The whole fwcutter procedure would just be moved to the PKGBUILD.

But we can't do that. it's not distributable.

Stoffi

Member

From: Various places in Norway

Registered: 2007-03-15

Posts: 107

Re: b43-fwcutter package, should it be altered?

Good to know we all agree