Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Rafał Miłecki]

Hi Broadcom fellows!

It's great that afters long years of... well, pretty horrible
relations with Linux/opensource you have taken actions to change your
image. I guess brcm80211 it's perfect yet, and people may like it more
or less, but it's no doubt you made step in the right direction.
Thanks for that!

As you should know, you released driver and firmware for 802.11n
devices only. I believe it was right, as these device seem to be the
most nowadays and were the only ones without any open source support.
For older devices: G-PHY and LP-PHY we have working b43 driver that is
in relatively good shape. However... there is one thing we still miss
for olders cards.

Every time someone wants to use b43 it's necessary to download quite
big package from openwrt, unpack it, extract firmware and install it.
That simply happens because we don't have just-firmware files with
nice licensing. And of course there goes my request:

*Can you submit G-PHY and LP-PHY firmware to linux-firmware using some
normal licensing, please?*

This is of course not the best I could wish for, but is important
anyway and it should be easy decision. Ideally you could release
sources of firmware (plus toolchain eventualy... however, we have nice
toolchain from Michael), but I guess it would need more time and
decisions to make it happen. So as for now I guess we would be happy
with just closed source but easy-distributable firmware. Could you
release, submit it?

-- 
Rafa?

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Rafał Miłecki]

W dniu 9 pa?dziernika 2010 00:07 u?ytkownik Rafa? Mi?ecki
<zajec5@gmail.com> napisa?:
> Hi Broadcom fellows!
>
> It's great that afters long years of... well, pretty horrible
> relations with Linux/opensource you have taken actions to change your
> image. I guess brcm80211 it's perfect yet, and people may like it more
> or less, but it's no doubt you made step in the right direction.
> Thanks for that!
>
> As you should know, you released driver and firmware for 802.11n
> devices only. I believe it was right, as these device seem to be the
> most nowadays and were the only ones without any open source support.
> For older devices: G-PHY and LP-PHY we have working b43 driver that is
> in relatively good shape. However... there is one thing we still miss
> for olders cards.
>
> Every time someone wants to use b43 it's necessary to download quite
> big package from openwrt, unpack it, extract firmware and install it.
> That simply happens because we don't have just-firmware files with
> nice licensing. And of course there goes my request:
>
> *Can you submit G-PHY and LP-PHY firmware to linux-firmware using some
> normal licensing, please?*
>
> This is of course not the best I could wish for, but is important
> anyway and it should be easy decision. Ideally you could release
> sources of firmware (plus toolchain eventualy... however, we have nice
> toolchain from Michael), but I guess it would need more time and
> decisions to make it happen. So as for now I guess we would be happy
> with just closed source but easy-distributable firmware. Could you
> release, submit it?

Greg: I didn't receive any answer from Broadcom for any mail. Do you
maybe have any "working" contact with this company? :|

-- 
Rafa?

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Rafał Miłecki]

W dniu 20 pa?dziernika 2010 23:50 u?ytkownik Henry Ptasinski
<henryp@broadcom.com> napisa?:
> Sorry for the delay in responding. ?We are exploring what is possible but
> for the moment the answer is no. At present our focus is on providing the
> best open source solution we can for 4313, 43224, 43225, 4329 and future
> chips sets.

Thanks for answer.

Please, can you make totally sure person responsible for this gets it
totally right? I believe it's very important.

The easiest step for you, which we still would appreciate is really
trivial one. It's *not* about writing any code, *not* about releasing
anything new. It's just about releasing in under friendly license.
This firmware is already available, we have access to it, we use it.
The problem is that distributions can not ship it.

If you let me use simplification: all we need as first nice step is
Broadcom to say: "You can use it".

-- 
Rafa?

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

2010/10/20 Rafa? Mi?ecki <zajec5@gmail.com>:
> W dniu 20 pa?dziernika 2010 23:50 u?ytkownik Henry Ptasinski
> <henryp@broadcom.com> napisa?:
>> Sorry for the delay in responding. ?We are exploring what is possible but
>> for the moment the answer is no. At present our focus is on providing the
>> best open source solution we can for 4313, 43224, 43225, 4329 and future
>> chips sets.
>
> Thanks for answer.
>
> Please, can you make totally sure person responsible for this gets it
> totally right? I believe it's very important.
>
> The easiest step for you, which we still would appreciate is really
> trivial one. It's *not* about writing any code, *not* about releasing
> anything new. It's just about releasing in under friendly license.
> This firmware is already available, we have access to it, we use it.
> The problem is that distributions can not ship it.
>
> If you let me use simplification: all we need as first nice step is
> Broadcom to say: "You can use it".

I should note not providing a redistributable firmware is actually
creating more motivation to keep working on open reversed engineered
firmware which may make take the devices out of compliance. Ultimately
this firmware is what is going to be used by users of the Linux kernel
if Broadcom does not provide any alternatives, as there is no option.

Please pass this message along :)

 Luis

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Rafał Miłecki]

W dniu 21 pa?dziernika 2010 17:21 u?ytkownik Dan Williams
<dcbw@redhat.com> napisa?:
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 00:11 +0200, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>> W dniu 20 pa?dziernika 2010 23:50 u?ytkownik Henry Ptasinski
>> <henryp@broadcom.com> napisa?:
>> > Sorry for the delay in responding. ?We are exploring what is possible but
>> > for the moment the answer is no. At present our focus is on providing the
>> > best open source solution we can for 4313, 43224, 43225, 4329 and future
>> > chips sets.
>>
>> Thanks for answer.
>>
>> Please, can you make totally sure person responsible for this gets it
>> totally right? I believe it's very important.
>>
>> The easiest step for you, which we still would appreciate is really
>> trivial one. It's *not* about writing any code, *not* about releasing
>> anything new. It's just about releasing in under friendly license.
>> This firmware is already available, we have access to it, we use it.
>> The problem is that distributions can not ship it.
>>
>> If you let me use simplification: all we need as first nice step is
>> Broadcom to say: "You can use it".
>
> That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it. ?We'd need a clear license
> from Broadcom (ex the existing Intel or Marvell firmware licenses)
> before Fedora could feel comfortable about shipping it legally in all
> jurisdictions.
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.mwl8k;h=3224e1bbfba8ccd1d980f57eb88378f20bb2d146;hb=HEAD
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.libertas;h=1fd8766c26a170b50605455ae6f54b607baa12cf;hb=HEAD
>
> There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may*
> be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies
> adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all
> the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.

Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect:

1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case)
2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices
?

-- 
Rafa?

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Larry Finger]

On 02/18/2011 03:24 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
> W dniu 21 pa?dziernika 2010 17:21 u?ytkownik Dan Williams
> <dcbw@redhat.com>  napisa?:
>> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 00:11 +0200, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>>> W dniu 20 pa?dziernika 2010 23:50 u?ytkownik Henry Ptasinski
>>> <henryp@broadcom.com>  napisa?:
>>>> Sorry for the delay in responding.  We are exploring what is possible but
>>>> for the moment the answer is no. At present our focus is on providing the
>>>> best open source solution we can for 4313, 43224, 43225, 4329 and future
>>>> chips sets.
>>>
>>> Thanks for answer.
>>>
>>> Please, can you make totally sure person responsible for this gets it
>>> totally right? I believe it's very important.
>>>
>>> The easiest step for you, which we still would appreciate is really
>>> trivial one. It's *not* about writing any code, *not* about releasing
>>> anything new. It's just about releasing in under friendly license.
>>> This firmware is already available, we have access to it, we use it.
>>> The problem is that distributions can not ship it.
>>>
>>> If you let me use simplification: all we need as first nice step is
>>> Broadcom to say: "You can use it".
>>
>> That's not enough to allow Fedora to ship it.  We'd need a clear license
>> from Broadcom (ex the existing Intel or Marvell firmware licenses)
>> before Fedora could feel comfortable about shipping it legally in all
>> jurisdictions.
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.mwl8k;h=3224e1bbfba8ccd1d980f57eb88378f20bb2d146;hb=HEAD
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/dwmw2/linux-firmware.git;a=blob;f=LICENCE.libertas;h=1fd8766c26a170b50605455ae6f54b607baa12cf;hb=HEAD
>>
>> There's an existing Broadcom license in linux-firmware.git, and it *may*
>> be OK, but it's really, really long and given that other major companies
>> adopted the "shorter is better" approach, it's hard to believe that all
>> the existing Broadcom license text is actually needed.
>
> Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect:
>
> 1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case)
> 2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices
> ?

I think we can forget this whole business. It seems that Broadcom is content 
with their business model, even though knowledgeable Linux users are avoiding 
their products like the plague.

Larry

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Gábor Stefanik]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 02/18/2011 03:24 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>> >Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect:
>> >
>> >1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case)
>> >2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices
>> >?
>>
>> I think we can forget this whole business. It seems that Broadcom is
>> content with their business model, even though knowledgeable Linux
>> users are avoiding their products like the plague.
>
> Broadcom will not release old firmware with redistributable license,
> because of legal concerns, which are ridiculous for everyone except
> them.
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-September/142893.html
>
> That sucks.
>

This looks like the same argument Intel is using to justify long
delays before releasing new firmware - it needs to pass regulatory
testing to ensure that regulatory restrictions in released FW cannot
be circumvented. Both seem rather odd in light of Atheros's
open-source firmware projects and general "conformant-by-default, but
no "DRM" to prevent regulatory infringement" policy - though I seem to
remember that Atheros acquired SDR certification, while Broadcom and
Intel both went for regular "part 11" certification only. AFAIK the
rules for SDRs are much more lax than those for part-11-only devices.

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>



-- 
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Rafał Miłecki]

2011/2/21 G?bor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2011 03:24 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>>> >Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect:
>>> >
>>> >1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case)
>>> >2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices
>>> >?
>>>
>>> I think we can forget this whole business. It seems that Broadcom is
>>> content with their business model, even though knowledgeable Linux
>>> users are avoiding their products like the plague.
>>
>> Broadcom will not release old firmware with redistributable license,
>> because of legal concerns, which are ridiculous for everyone except
>> them.
>>
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-September/142893.html
>>
>> That sucks.
>>
>
> This looks like the same argument Intel is using to justify long
> delays before releasing new firmware - it needs to pass regulatory
> testing to ensure that regulatory restrictions in released FW cannot
> be circumvented. Both seem rather odd in light of Atheros's
> open-source firmware projects and general "conformant-by-default, but
> no "DRM" to prevent regulatory infringement" policy - though I seem to
> remember that Atheros acquired SDR certification, while Broadcom and
> Intel both went for regular "part 11" certification only. AFAIK the
> rules for SDRs are much more lax than those for part-11-only devices.

But Broadcom's firmware was already released, it's commonly used. Plus
they already published some N-PHY AI firmware in linux-firmware tree.
The whole situation just does not make any sense.

-- 
Rafa?

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Larry Finger]

On 02/21/2011 03:59 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>> On 02/18/2011 03:24 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>>> Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect:
>>>
>>> 1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case)
>>> 2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices
>>> ?
>>
>> I think we can forget this whole business. It seems that Broadcom is
>> content with their business model, even though knowledgeable Linux
>> users are avoiding their products like the plague.
>
> Broadcom will not release old firmware with redistributable license,
> because of legal concerns, which are ridiculous for everyone except
> them.
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-September/142893.html

Did I tell you that I hate lawyers?

Larry

Request for free-distributable Broadcom's (G|LP)-PHY firmware

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:23 AM, G?bor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2011 03:24 PM, Rafa? Mi?ecki wrote:
>>> >Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect:
>>> >
>>> >1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case)
>>> >2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices
>>> >?
>>>
>>> I think we can forget this whole business. It seems that Broadcom is
>>> content with their business model, even though knowledgeable Linux
>>> users are avoiding their products like the plague.
>>
>> Broadcom will not release old firmware with redistributable license,
>> because of legal concerns, which are ridiculous for everyone except
>> them.
>>
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-September/142893.html
>>
>> That sucks.
>>
>
> This looks like the same argument Intel is using to justify long
> delays before releasing new firmware - it needs to pass regulatory
> testing to ensure that regulatory restrictions in released FW cannot
> be circumvented. Both seem rather odd in light of Atheros's
> open-source firmware projects and general "conformant-by-default, but
> no "DRM" to prevent regulatory infringement" policy - though I seem to
> remember that Atheros acquired SDR certification, while Broadcom and
> Intel both went for regular "part 11" certification only. AFAIK the
> rules for SDRs are much more lax than those for part-11-only devices.

Huh ? No, there have been no 802.11 SDR certificiations by Atheros or
any modern vendor. We're all on the same boat.

  Luis