Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Han Boetes]

Hi,

The people from the OpenBSD project are currently lobbying to get the
firmware for Intel wireless chipsets under a license suitable for Open
Source.

Since this will not only benefit BSD but also the Linux Project (and
even Intel) I would like to mention the URL here for people who want to
help writing to Intel.

  http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20041027193425



# Han

Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Lee Revell]

On Thu, 2004-10-28 at 04:25 +0200, Han Boetes wrote:
> The people from the OpenBSD project are currently lobbying to get the
> firmware for Intel wireless chipsets under a license suitable for Open
> Source.
> 
> Since this will not only benefit BSD but also the Linux Project (and
> even Intel) I would like to mention the URL here for people who want to
> help writing to Intel.

It appears that they already let you (re)distribute the firmware as a
binary blob.  Since this is not code that runs on your computer, what is
the problem?

Lee  

Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Gene Heskett]

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:25, Han Boetes wrote:
>Hi,
>
>The people from the OpenBSD project are currently lobbying to get
> the firmware for Intel wireless chipsets under a license suitable
> for Open Source.
>
>Since this will not only benefit BSD but also the Linux Project (and
>even Intel) I would like to mention the URL here for people who want
> to help writing to Intel.
>
>  http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20041027193425
>
Please be aware that for the so-called "software radios" 
chips/chipsets, the FCC, and other similar regulating bodies in other 
countries has made access to the data quite restrictive in an attempt 
to keep the less ruly among us from putting them on frequencies they 
aren't authorized to use, or to set the power levels above whats 
allowed.  These restrictions can vary from governing body to 
governing body so the software is generally supplied according to 
where the chipset is being shipped.  The potential for mischief, and 
legal/monetary reprecussions is sufficiently great that I have 
serious doubts that Intel will budge from their current position 
unless we can prove, beyond any doubt, that the regulatory 
limitations imposed will not be violated.

Since open source, where anyone who can read the code can see exactly 
what the limits are, and 'adjust to suit', virtually guarantees 
miss-use, sooner if not later, for no other reason than its human 
nature to experiment, Intel/moto/etc therefore has very good reasons 
to treat its chip<->software interface as highly secret & 
proprietary.

Thats not saying that they may at some point furnish a 'filter' that 
presents the rest of the world with a usable API to control it, but 
the filter will see to it that attempted illegal settings are 
ignored.  The only way I can see that actually working is to actually 
put that filter inside the chip, customized for the locale its being 
shipped to.  The radio control portion of the chip itself wouldn't 
even be bonded out to external world pins or bga contacts, just the 
port of the filter that the outside world talks to.

I'd rather doubt they want to make 20 to 40 different filtered 
versions of the same chipset just to satisfy TPTB in some 3rd world 
country thats less than 1% of the total sales.  Even the relatively 
dense market where Han lives is probably less than 5% of the total 
for a popular chipset. 

I'm a broadcast engineer who has been dealing at times with the FCC 
for over 40 years, so you could say I'm biased.  But thats not real 
bias, its just from being fairly familiar with the regulatory 
territory.

I'd like to see an open source solution to this problem myself, but 
just because its open source we are asking for, with the attendent 
liabilities that implies, I would not hold my breath till it happens. 

If you do, you'll probably be talking to the rest of the world through 
a Ouija board.

># Han

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.28% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.

Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Thursday 28 October 2004 06:46, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:25, Han Boetes wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >The people from the OpenBSD project are currently lobbying to get
> > the firmware for Intel wireless chipsets under a license suitable
> > for Open Source.
> >
> >Since this will not only benefit BSD but also the Linux Project (and
> >even Intel) I would like to mention the URL here for people who want
> > to help writing to Intel.
> >
> >  http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20041027193425
> >
> Please be aware that for the so-called "software radios" 
> chips/chipsets, the FCC, and other similar regulating bodies in other 
> countries has made access to the data quite restrictive in an attempt 
> to keep the less ruly among us from putting them on frequencies they 
> aren't authorized to use, or to set the power levels above whats 
> allowed.  These restrictions can vary from governing body to 
> governing body so the software is generally supplied according to 
> where the chipset is being shipped.  The potential for mischief, and 
> legal/monetary reprecussions is sufficiently great that I have 
> serious doubts that Intel will budge from their current position 
> unless we can prove, beyond any doubt, that the regulatory 
> limitations imposed will not be violated.
> 
> Since open source, where anyone who can read the code can see exactly 
> what the limits are, and 'adjust to suit', virtually guarantees 
> miss-use, sooner if not later, for no other reason than its human 
> nature to experiment, Intel/moto/etc therefore has very good reasons 
> to treat its chip<->software interface as highly secret & 
> proprietary.

However, disassemblers do exist. Hiding secrets in binary .o
files is silly.
--
vda

Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Kalin KOZHUHAROV]

Just one statement (below)...

Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 22:25, Han Boetes wrote:
> 
>>Hi,
>>
>>The people from the OpenBSD project are currently lobbying to get
>>the firmware for Intel wireless chipsets under a license suitable
>>for Open Source.
>>
>>Since this will not only benefit BSD but also the Linux Project (and
>>even Intel) I would like to mention the URL here for people who want
>>to help writing to Intel.
>>
>> http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20041027193425
>>
> 
> Please be aware that for the so-called "software radios" 
> chips/chipsets, the FCC, and other similar regulating bodies in other 
> countries has made access to the data quite restrictive in an attempt 
> to keep the less ruly among us from putting them on frequencies they 
> aren't authorized to use, or to set the power levels above whats 
> allowed.  These restrictions can vary from governing body to 
> governing body so the software is generally supplied according to 
> where the chipset is being shipped.  The potential for mischief, and 
> legal/monetary reprecussions is sufficiently great that I have 
> serious doubts that Intel will budge from their current position 
> unless we can prove, beyond any doubt, that the regulatory 
> limitations imposed will not be violated.
> 
> Since open source, where anyone who can read the code can see exactly 
> what the limits are, and 'adjust to suit', virtually guarantees 
> miss-use, sooner if not later, for no other reason than its human 
> nature to experiment, Intel/moto/etc therefore has very good reasons 
> to treat its chip<->software interface as highly secret & 
> proprietary.
To own a gun (in USA at least) is legal and easy.
To use it is your choice.
It may be illegel at times, but you still can (legally) have one.
 
> Thats not saying that they may at some point furnish a 'filter' that 
> presents the rest of the world with a usable API to control it, but 
> the filter will see to it that attempted illegal settings are 
> ignored.  The only way I can see that actually working is to actually 
> put that filter inside the chip, customized for the locale its being 
> shipped to.  The radio control portion of the chip itself wouldn't 
> even be bonded out to external world pins or bga contacts, just the 
> port of the filter that the outside world talks to.
> 
> I'd rather doubt they want to make 20 to 40 different filtered 
> versions of the same chipset just to satisfy TPTB in some 3rd world 
> country thats less than 1% of the total sales.  Even the relatively 
> dense market where Han lives is probably less than 5% of the total 
> for a popular chipset. 
> 
> I'm a broadcast engineer who has been dealing at times with the FCC 
> for over 40 years, so you could say I'm biased.  But thats not real 
> bias, its just from being fairly familiar with the regulatory 
> territory.
> 
> I'd like to see an open source solution to this problem myself, but 
> just because its open source we are asking for, with the attendent 
> liabilities that implies, I would not hold my breath till it happens. 
> 
> If you do, you'll probably be talking to the rest of the world through 
> a Ouija board.
> 

Just stirring the soup you see,
Kalin.

-- 
 || ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ||
(  ) http://ThinRope.net/ (  )
 || ______________________ ||

Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Dax Kelson]

On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 23:50, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> However, disassemblers do exist. Hiding secrets in binary .o
> files is silly.

Who cares what the secrets in the firmware are. 

Again, it does not execute on your computer's CPU. It does not taint the
kernel. The Linux kernel driver is 100% GPLd, no binary blobs.

Nearly all the devices in your computer have firmware. Your keyboard,
your CDROM drive, your graphics card. It is hypocritical to clamor for
the source code to the IPW2100/2200/etc while not clamoring for the
source code to all the other firmwares in your computer.

It is unfortunate that the firmware isn't stored onboard the Intel card,
and instead needs to be loaded, however, this is a pretty minor
inconvenience. 

The only remaining issue, if the redistribution terms of the firmware
are liberal enough so that RHEL/FC and other free minded distros can
include the files out of the box in /lib/hotplug/firmware directory.

Apparently the terms are OK with SUSE as they include the firmware in
SUSE LINUX v9.2. This isn't a huge surprise as SUSE has always been more
willing to bundle less than free works.

Dax Kelson
Guru Labs

Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Marcel Holtmann]

Hi Dax,

> The only remaining issue, if the redistribution terms of the firmware
> are liberal enough so that RHEL/FC and other free minded distros can
> include the files out of the box in /lib/hotplug/firmware directory.

as a side note, the finally choosen directory is /lib/firmware/.

Regards

Marcel