intel ipw2100/ipw2200 firmware must be removed

[Al Dunsmuir]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012, 7:25:15 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> See:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware

> Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>> Question about that: The first requirement is that the file is 
>> non-executable. Does that mean that Fedora cannot ship firmware for 
>> hardware that has a CPU compatible with the host CPU? 


> If it does mean that, it will be a problem for the ARM architecture, as
> many hardware devices using downloaded firmware use ARM cores.

> The specific statement is:

>      "The files are non-executable (note: this means that the files 
> cannot run on their own, not that they are just chmod -x)"

> I'm not sure what it means for files to "run on their own".  I don't 
> think I have a single file on any of my computers that can run on its 
> own.  As far as I can see, even the Linux kernel cannot run on its own.

> Perhaps it means that the file can't be in a supported executable format
> such as ELF?  Downloaded firmware often is in raw binary format, but 
> it's certainly conceivable that some might be in ELF format.

This   topic   has   come   up   at   regular  intervals  in the past,
especially  when  the  kernel interfaces for downloading firmware were
being developed.

The packaging statement is meant to clarify, and to be read literally.
It   means  that  the  program is not a stand-alone program for use by
the  host  computer.  It requires additional hardware to operate.   It
is  marked  non-executable  "-x" to prevent attempts to execute by the
host  computer  (or  for  the security conscious, attempts to disguise
malware as firmware).

Normally firmware is a binary blob that is downloaded by the kernel to
that  hardware,  and  used in some manner by that hardware,  It may be
a  program  (code/data)  executed  by  a CPU (or equivalent such as an
ASIC)  or  some  form of data required for execution of that hardware.
It may be multiple of each, in a fancy wrapper scheme with CRCs.

Delivering  firmware  via a standard kernel API was a big change a few
years ago.  It allowed standard packaging of firmware, and eliminated
the need for users to do nasty  things  like  use  programs the cut the
firmware images out of Windows PE executables downloaded from chip/card
vendor websites.

The  encoding  doesn't  matter  -  what matters is that the content is
automatically delivered to the hardware so that hardware can operate.

What  also matters is that the licence allow Fedora to freely distribute
the firmware file, without silly restrictions such as "non-commercial use
only".

Some folks object to Fedora shipping binary blobs, and insist that the
only true way is to ship everything with source and build tools.  That
has been debated fiercely in the past... and the current rules were the
IMO reasonable compromise that resulted.