<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/09/2018 04:55 AM, JD wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:5A7D6FF8.5080003@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">Hi,<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">I am
trying to install centos 7 (7.4, that is),<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">on a
friend's computer, which is equipped with<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">a
broadcom 4322 wifi chipset.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">I am so
totally disgusted with the Centos people<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">NOT
providing rpms fo it, the way rpmfusion provides them for
fedora.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">This
build requirement, rpm macros creation ...etc<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">are such
a total turn-off for newbies wanting<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">to run
centos, they quickly look elsewhere, and they<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">are also
disappointed UNLESS they choose fedora<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">and
install rpmfusion repo rpms for the version<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">of fedora
they install.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">So, my
question:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">Why could
you not actually build the requisite rpms,<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">and put
them on your website???? Or better yet,<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">provide
.repo files for these rpms that are specific<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">requirement
to run broadcom wifi's.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">Thanx for
your effort!!<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">Cheers,<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;font-size:large">JD<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
JD:<br>
<br>
[rant] (Not directed toward JD)<br>
<br>
The best way to address this issue is to stop purchasing hardware
with restrictive firmware licenses and, specifically, to stop
purchasing Broadcom hardware impacted by this issue. If the drivers
were appropriately opensourced, then they would likely be included
in the kernel and/or elrepo would build/distribute the binary.<br>
<br>
Hey Broadcom. Are you listening? Only you can fix this problem.<br>
<br>
[/rant]<br>
<br>
As explained at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://elrepo.org/tiki/wl-kmod">http://elrepo.org/tiki/wl-kmod</a>, Broadcom restricts
the redistribute of their binary code.<br>
<br>
If you download and unpack the Broadcom hybrid driver, then you will
find license terms that include:<br>
<br>
"2.3. Restriction on Distribution. Licensee shall only
distribute the Software (a) under the terms of this Agreement and a
copy of this Agreement accompanies such distribution, and (b) agrees
to defend and indemnify Broadcom and its licensors from and against
any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses
(including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with any claim,
lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results from the
use or distribution of any and all Software by the Licensee except
as contemplated herein."<br>
<br>
<br>
That part (i.e., defend and indemnify Broadcom and its licensors)
is very clear and is not consistent with our distribution policies.
We do not distribute binaries with this type of restricted code,
often referred to as non-free.<br>
<br>
<br>
To directly answer your question, anyone who wishes to use our
nosource srpm to build/distribute the binary is free to do so, but
please do not use the .elrepo distribution tag. Nux
built/distributed the binaries for a while with our thanks/blessing,
but it got complicated due to differences in minor release dates for
rhel and its clones, so the binaries were removed.<br>
<br>
<br>
Hope that helps you understand our position.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
</body>
</html>