ipw2200 and network manager

[malcolm northcott]

Ok, I read the firmware license myself looks like a typical legal team
CYB effort. So that begs the question: Is there any way for the network
setup tool to give a the user some more useful clue as to what is wrong.
The network tool seems like the right place for this, since that is
where most users will first encounter the issue.
It seems like this sort of issue will probably become more common as the
division between software and hardware continues to blur. Is there a
more general mechanism for informing users that they have to agree
company XXXX's license before they can use the hardware from XXXX?
	Mal.

PS. I apparently skirted past this issue on FC3 because I started using
the ipw2200 driver before the modules were included in the FC3 kernel.
 

> fromOn Thu, 2005-05-19 at 16:15 +1000, Rodd Clarkson wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 22:26 -0700, malcolm northcott wrote:
> > Following Dan's lead I noticed that there was no firmware.... probably
> > not good. I downloaded the latest ipw2200 driver and firmware from
> > ipw2200.sourceforge.net (1.0.4). After installation everything worked
> > fine. 
> > Presumably the ipw2100 is also missing firmware.
> > Is the missing firmware an oversight or is it due to an IP issue with
> > binary firmware? 
> 
> It's due to the license of the firmware (and the interpretation of that
> license, which seems a little vague and unclear).  Sadly Intel don't
> seem that responsive to addressing the issue.
> 
> It's been discussed here, in fedora-devel and on the redhat-legal (???)
> list so search for discussion there (before it blows up into a thousand
> threads again).
> 
> 
> R.
> -- 
> "It's a fine line between denial and faith.
>  It's much better on my side"
>