Re: Intel also needs convincing on firmware licensing.

[Kalin KOZHUHAROV <kalin@thinrope.net>]

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/ (  )
 || ______________________ ||