I removed l-a-k from the response list as I have been previously told that even mentioning this software is inappropriate for the list...
From: Marc Singer >> On Dec 21 2005, at 15:48, Stefan Roese was caught saying: >> > It most likely is the same code. Currently it's version 2.0. It's currently at version 2.1, I think that was released sometime in November >> > This version is >> > available under a special Intel license >> > (http://www.intel.com/design/network/products/npfamily/ixp425swr1.htm) Which is incompatible with the Linux GPL and which (by the nslu2-linux project understanding) actually prevents the code being built into the kernel. (Well, it can be done, but we think it means that the result cannot be distributed.) We build the code as a module (and distribute it with the required Intel 'click through' license). >> > and >> > under the BSD license (when you bug your Intel contact enough). Woo hoo! That would be a major step forward for the IXP42x platform... >> > The files >> > seem to be the same, only the header with the license is exchanged. I can find out pretty quickly if someone is prepared to make 2.1 (BSD) available in a *legal* fashion, since the NSLU2 version of IAL 2.1 has quite a few patches. So far as I am aware Intel contacts have been unforthcoming on this in the past. >> I'll take a look a this some more, but is it just the HAL or the whole >> stack that's open? The IAL has two components which are licensed in one block - the OS interface and the HAL for most of the on-chip components in an IXP42x. The ethernet driver which uses the parts of the IAL for the NPE is separately licensed (and doesn't have the same restrictions). The IAL duplicates a lot of existing Linux capabilities - so in practice a build for use with Linux will deconfigure the stuff which is already in Linux (such as the USB support.) In addition versions >=2.0 separate the NPE microcode into a separate downloadable. Since the NPE microcode is machine code it can't be GPL'ed (i.e. there is no source available), but since it no longer needs to be compiled into the module that's no longer an issue. >I chatted with Lennert about this and was, well, amazed. In reading >what I see on the web site, it looks to me that the library is still >heavily guarded. They're publishing a GPL'd 'driver' that links with >the library. Well, yes, but if Intel will release a redistributable version with a BSD license to someone, somewhere, the license on the web site becomes irrelevant. The problem is that BSD (etc) does not guarantee redistributability, so if someone comes up with a BSD licensed version and says "here, take a look at this" this isn't enough, at least for me. I would want assurance that Intel is happy with the code being redistributed in this way. >The click-through license establishes the same ol' terms. "You can >only distribute this software with a hardware product." This probably isn't a good place to discuss the license, particularly as I'm certainly not a lawyer, but so far as I can see the license quite clearly says that the IAL can be distributed with "A Software Product". Anyway, it doesn't matter, it can't be built in to a GPL'ed item with that license, so everything else is moot. John Bowler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
