Return-path: Received: from mail-ey0-f174.google.com ([209.85.215.174]:42912 "EHLO mail-ey0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751728Ab1BQWKh (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Feb 2011 17:10:37 -0500 Received: by eye27 with SMTP id 27so1695787eye.19 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2011 14:10:35 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D5D9D19.3090105@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:11:37 +0100 From: Xose Vazquez Perez MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Larry Finger CC: Ivo Van Doorn , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: Update rt2860/rt2870 firmware References: <4D09081A.3060404@gmail.com> <4D5D7A09.7000203@gmail.com> <4D5D9594.7010904@gmail.com> <4D5D97EB.9020406@lwfinger.net> In-Reply-To: <4D5D97EB.9020406@lwfinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/17/2011 10:49 PM, Larry Finger wrote: > Did your proposed change have a good/strong reference to the license file in WHENCE? > My experience is that the maintainer drops changes that do not, usually without comment. > I also found that "found in hex form in source" did not work the way it did for your > previous versions. Only when I provided a license from the vendor did I get anywhere. > Is LICENCE.ralink-firmware.txt valid for this new version? I didn't see any wrong in my patch. LICENCE.ralink-firmware.txt has not changed. Maybe someone from @ralink can send an 'official' request. -- ?All? muevan feroz guerra, ciegos reyes por un palmo m?s de tierra; que yo aqu? tengo por m?o cuanto abarca el mar brav?o, a quien nadie impuso leyes. Y no hay playa, sea cualquiera, ni bandera de esplendor, que no sienta mi derecho y d? pecho a mi valor.?