Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Update On OpenBSD Firmware Activism

Posted by Hemos on Mon Nov 22, 2004 09:12 AM
from the more-then-one-side-to-a-story dept.
Wireless Networking Operating Systems Hardware BSD
putko writes "Here's an update on the OpenBSD firmware activism. Basically, Intel says no. Plenty of contact info, in case you want to write someone an email or a phone call. As Theo writes, 'Without these firmware files included in OpenBSD, users must go do some click-through license at some web site to get at the files. Without those files, these devices are just bits of metal, plastic, and sand.'" While I applaud the notion behind Freer distribution (as in beer) it's also highly probable that Intel doesn't have much ground make them freer - we've seen this before on machines like the HP nw8000; basically, the wireless stuff is owned by someone else, licensed by Intel. That's not to say that the fight isn't worth fighting for freer distribution - it is. But if you want to make your voice heard, remember to be effective advocate.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] BSD: Hifn Restricts Crypto Docs, OpenBSD Opens Fire 304 comments
Mhrmnhrm writes "After totally closing off public access to documentation for their chips roughly five years ago, Hifn is again offering them, but with an invasive registration requirement. Needless to say, Theo de Raadt and the rest of the OpenBSD team were not amused, and following a Hifn manager's missive, the gauntlet has been thrown. Either open the docs fully, or be removed from the system. This wouldn't be the first time... the same thing happened to both Adaptec and Intel following similar spats."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Update On OpenBSD Firmware Activism 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • What firmware exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cutriss (262920) on Monday November 22 2004, @09:18AM (#10887602) Homepage
    Perhaps it's just me, but I think it would have been useful and rather painless to include the word "Centrino" somewhere in that article so that people who aren't intimately familiar with OpenBSD would know what we were talking about without having to guess (or read 2/3s of the thing before they actually see the word "wireless").
    • Come on... that'd make the article slightly useful to the readers and therefore might risk an increase in useful and informative comments.

    • Re:What firmware exactly? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Maybe that's because Centrino is a platform, not just the wireless part of the package (Pentium M and the mobo being the other two parts of the package).
    • (or read 2/3s of the thing before they actually see the word "wireless").

      Actually the topic is "Wireless Networking"
      • RTFA!!!
        OpenBSD wants only free distribution right of the binary files. That's all, they don't even want the right to modify the binary. Just to be able to distribute it like they do with so many other firmware files. Else you have to go download the file from somewhere else (how do you do that without a network connection) or OpenBSD has to sign an agreement that they won't since they would have to limit the way they distribute their software. Among other things, they would have to put you through a click t

  • Amonkeysayshuh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Monday November 22 2004, @09:22AM (#10887643) Homepage
    "While I applaud the notion behind Freer distribution (as in speech) it's also highly probable that Intel doesn't have much ground make them freer - we've seen this before on machines like the HP nw8000; basically, the wireless stuff is owned by someone else, licensed by Intel."

    Is that supposed to be a sentence, or has Hemos been playing around with the Monkey / Shakespeare Simulator [tninet.se] again?

    • What are you talking about? That looks no worse than your typical Slashdot article. I mean come on, their titles as "editors" have always been a bit suspect at best.

  • If the BSD people want... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22 2004, @09:27AM (#10887681)
    Intel to speak to them, they are going to need a medium.
    • yeah, and his name is andrew jackson and he is of a new race called green.

      Seriously, there is not a large enough market force to open up the firmware.

      • Re:If the BSD people want... (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's not to 'open source' the firmware, it's to be able to [re]distribute the binary version. There's no harm in Intel doing that, just that someone's (be it Intel or whoever they contracted with) is clueless!
      • Seriously, there is not a large enough market force to open up the firmware.

        This is a very apt observation of you, and indeed correct. However, this is not what anybody is requesting. The firmware binary blob, which is downloadable via a stupid click-through license, is not being requested to be "opened". The request is that the binary blob's license be amended to be able to be redistributed by OSS projects. This is the same exact file that is freely available, legally, from Intel's site.

        One must ask wh

  • Howto fix. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22 2004, @09:29AM (#10887702)
    The simple and most obvious solution to my mind is.

    a: Email in a polite manner an Intel representative, explaining that in light of their refusal to cooperate with a freer use of hardware you bought or would have bought that you will vote with your feet and use a competitor, who will comply with non-restrictive use.

    b: Then actually vote with your feet.

    I can't see, _how_ exactly Intel can't redistribute it's own firmware, under any license it likes. We could speculate as to some _evil_ empire requiring Intel to rescrictive agreements, but, I think that, the reality is, that a company the size of Intel, probably to a large extent has home grown products virtually everywhere.

    Base case Intel won't cooperate and won't give reasons for non cooperation, there is _no_ reason to ascribe any frustrated alutristic intentions on their part, by some external evil.

    Is there a link somewhere, for a list of cards which will work, with Free as in speech Operating systems?
  • wireless, one must jump through some hoops to obtain firmware to use it with BSD.

    . It's not like it's unavailable.

    The referenced commentary relates the obvious solution for users who do not like this approach to distribution. "There is almost always choice".

    WHich bring up another angle. It's hardware. I doubt Intel has any 'obligations to others' as far as making a detailed description of the hardware workings available. This would allow someone to write GPL firmware.

    Or am I being naieve here?
    • No, it's not unavailable, but it does make it impossible to do a networked based install over one of the intel wireless cards.
    • Much as I'd like the debate to be about making GPL firmware, it isn't. The issue here is that OpenBSD cannot distribute the binaries of the uploadable firmware that's necessary to make the wireless functionality work. The license forbids it.

      You'll note how silly this is. The firmware only works on products Intel sells. Intel doesn't sell the firmware seperately. There is no loss to Intel, at all, for it to provide OpenBSD users with the firmware, and it'd increase sales for Intel.

      Hemos seems to think it

    • of course, intel is very nearly like microsoft.
      each has competition that they either don't
      like to acknowledge, or are willing to use
      whatever means necessary (FUD, IP, etc) in a
      vain attempt to maintain market share.

      intel's off-again/on-again stance regarding the
      inclusion of WiFi in their Centrino product does
      not inspire any longterm confidence in their
      commitments (just as with microsoft's commitment
      to data security). it is all about market share,
      and the quest for the almighty buck.

      what is really needed is

    • Re:As a consequence of purchasing intel (Score:4, Insightful)

      by runderwo (609077) * <runderwo&mail,win,org> on Monday November 22 2004, @12:11PM (#10889192)
      WHich bring up another angle. It's hardware. I doubt Intel has any 'obligations to others' as far as making a detailed description of the hardware workings available. This would allow someone to write GPL firmware.
      You're being stupid. Even though that would be a good thing, if you would RTFA, that isn't what this is about. OpenBSD wants _freely distributable_ firmware, _not_ source code or anything else related to the firmware architecture.

      So, that sounds more reasonable. What could keep Intel from doing this?

      • Third party patent licenses restricting free distribution
      • Third party software licenses restricting free distribution on the derived binary code
      • Fear of hardware cloners "dropping in" the firmware and selling a knockoff product
      • etc...
      In short, there are a myriad of reasons why Intel would say no. If this is a problem for you, reverse the hardware and produce a free firmware, or make noise && vote with your feet.

  • Activism or documentation? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shic (309152) on Monday November 22 2004, @09:35AM (#10887742)
    Part of me wants to back Theo arguing for distributable firmware - but another part of me feels that there is still a lot that can be achieved without requiring any re-licensing.

    I'm currently stuck trying to get my Alcatel/Thompson "Speedtouch 330" (Revision 4) ADSL modem to work under FreeBSD 5.3. Downloading the 'firmware' was a pain but much of that could have been resolved with some good documentation and an MD5 to verify the correct version. Even now I have the device recognised following the handbook doesn't get me connected... and offers precious little information about how to make appropriate configuration.

    I suppose the response might be that that OpenBSD would do this fine - though I chose FreeBSD as a result about concerns about OpenBSD support for the Atheros chipset in my Dlink DWL G520 PCI wireless net card (which is straightforward to configure in FreeBSD.) Aaaagh!
    • If the firmware for your DSL modem was licensed such that it could be freely redistributed, operating systems like OpenBSD and FreeBSD could include that firmware and save you the "pain" of downloading it. Good documentation doesn't cut it if it says 'go here and download this' and you say 'but I have no network connection.'
      • I can't fault the preference for redistributable firmware - that's obvious. However, we don't need any third party to change its behaviour to overcome my hassles... just clear, accurate descriptions (with MD5 sums where using 3rd party components) of the components themselves and their configuration.
        Downloading drivers is no hassle for me - and, I suspect, if the drivers worked painlessly and proved easily configured then the manufacturer would be happy to put the firmware on the CD distributed with the ha
    • "I'm currently stuck trying to get my Alcatel/Thompson "Speedtouch 330" (Revision 4) ADSL modem to work under FreeBSD 5.3."

      I struggled with that for a couple of months before biting the bullet and buying a wireless router. Probably not the most elegant solution, but it did the job.

      "Atheros chipset in my Dlink DWL G520 PCI wireless net card"

      And you're trying to connect up an Alcatel? You're either operating on the mother of all shoestrings or you have far too much time.
      • It is only a for-home system... the Speedtouch modem works fantastically under windows - and hell - all I want it to do is chuck packets at my ISP from my BSD box. As the handbook suggests just such a configuration - I'm sure you'll agree it shouldn't be a big problem to set up.
        I'd prefer not to use a "wireless router" as I want to use more advanced packet filtering and IPSEC encryptions which are easy with BSD. I like the conceptual simplicty of 1 ADSL adaptor; 1 Ethernet card; 1 wireless card. In order
        • "As the handbook suggests just such a configuration - I'm sure you'll agree it shouldn't be a big problem to set up."

          I followed the handbook to the letter and I got no joy. Then tried someone else's Howto. No joy.

          Essentially the ppp.log would be filled with 'unknown protocol', for which I couldn't find a decent explanation, so I chickened out and went for the path of least resistance in buying the router. Possibly not within the spirit of BSD, but I'd much rather fix stuff in my code than diagnose w
      • Hmmm - that makes Atheros looks just as supported as in FreeBSD... My concerns (about a year ago) were that the only references to ATH in OpenBSD were messages suggesting that it wasn't supported - I didn't feel inclined to install it to check the manual pages.
        I don't suppose you can also tell me that OpenBSD can also solve my problems with my "Speedtouch 330 (Rev 4)" USB ADSL modem assuming an ISP demanding PPPoA? If I can solve my headaches with a change from FreeBSD to OpenBSD, I'd do that in an instant
        • Just a question: why did you buy the USB version? No offense, but you knew that it would make problems sooner or later when using alternate systems. I have an "Alcatel Speed Touch Home" (Ethernet version) and it has worked 100% fine since day one. (on OpenBSD)

          Yes, the saleman looked at me as if I was an idiot because I wanted the more expensive Ethernet version. Why not buy just USB? I will tell you: because the communication over USB is not standardized for such devices. The only USB devices you ca

          • I might have asked exactly the same question on Sunday when, after much effort I got as far as seeing /var/log/messages reporting "Where is the crappy modem?" (I'm not embellishing the colourful language!)

            In an attempt to explain my reasoning (which one might reasonably consider flawed) I decided to by a Speedtouch USB ADSL modem rather than an Ethernet one for several reasons:

            • I want to keep my LAN physically separate from internet traffic - I wanted to use BSD as a secure gateway to the net for my i
      • An amusing chicken and egg quandary for sure - but not a serious concern for most BSD/Linux users who usually have at least occasional access to another internet connected PC. I'd say misleading or missing documentation is a bigger issue - I certainly can't download firmware if I don't know which firmware I should be downloading!

  • Constant complaining counts! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by erroneus (253617) on Monday November 22 2004, @09:36AM (#10887747) Homepage
    Ask nicely all you want and you're likely to be ignored. But let the buying public become a pain in the ass and they're likely to do something about it.

    While it's pretty obvious that the companies that use these chipsets are essentially helpless and cannot release the firmware code for public distribution, if people are enough of a pain in the ass, it will prevent them from using such hardware/firmware in the future. Don't quit complaining or they will read it as acceptance.

    • Re:Constant complaining counts! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Otter (3800) on Monday November 22 2004, @09:43AM (#10887799) Journal
      But let the buying public become a pain in the ass and they're likely to do something about it.

      Sure. Unfortunately, from the point of view of the Centrino group (or laptop retailers), OpenBSD users don't even begin to approach the status of "the buying public".

    • Ask nicely all you want and you're likely to be ignored. But let the buying public become a pain in the ass and they're likely to do something about it.

      The "buying public" does not use BSD. They don't know what it is.

      This is a non-story. The stuff is out there for anyone to download. Big deal. Non-issue.

      This is one of the things people hate about FOSS fanatics: Sputtering and spitting and gesticulating about.... nothing.

      • This is something--if OpenBSD allows click-through EULAs during the install, then the result could be having to accept tens of licenses during the install phase of OpenBSD. In addition to an inconvenience, this presents a problem for diskless installs.

        All this "sputtering and spitting and gesticulating" is what brought us FOSS operating systems to begin with. If you don't like the politics, you're still welcome to use the software, which is provided for you at no charge.

        This is one thing I don't like ab

  • RTFA - just wants distribution rights NOT SOURCE! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 22 2004, @09:44AM (#10887810)
    "It took Intel about two weeks to come back and say that they cannot give us freer redistribution rights." [4th paragraph, first line.]

    http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=109 994542424009&w=2 [theaimsgroup.com]

  • Effective advocacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfg (145172) on Monday November 22 2004, @09:46AM (#10887831)
    Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized.

    Holding our most vocal proponents to be above criticism is an example of exactly the sort of mindless zealotry that epitomizes bad advocacy.

    They should not, of course, be flamed, but critcised with professional politness where they are deserving of it, and everyone is deserving of it at one time or another.

    When Neils Bohr went to Los Alamos during the Manhatten Project he spent a lot of time talking to Feynman, who, at the time, was a pretty minor figure who hadn't even finished his doctorate work yet.

    Why? Because he was the only one there unafraid to forthrightly tell the Great One his ideas were stupid when they were.

    Good leaders like that sort of thing. It makes their own advocay stronger. Only bad leaders hold themselves as above admission of error.

    Yeah, I see the idea that Joe was driving at here, but he needs to go back rework that bit, as it came out very, very wrong, suggesting that we should all show a mindless unity when it comes to our public front

    There's a word for that: zealotry.

    And it's all about free as in speech, isn't it?

    Besides, from what I've seen, Linus, ESR and RMS are well able to stand up for themselves, and rather entertaining while they do it, even if you disagree with them on some point or other.

    KFG
  • "Most users ever online was 469, 12 Minutes Ago at 10:32."

    So 24 comments, and 469 blokes actually RTFA.

  • The point right now is not, "will Intel do the Right Thing", since they probably have agreed not to, but will Intel (and others) see a benefit in working to change that situation, both in present circumstances and in future contract negotiations? People who want a more open firmware environment probably won't get what they want today, but we need to see if we can get some of the Big Boys to see profit in making it happen tomorrow.

  • There is choice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by macemoneta (154740) on Monday November 22 2004, @10:37AM (#10888262)
    Vendors that are OEMing components have a choice of components, just as consumers have a choice of vendor. If there is sufficient backlash against a component choice that limits consumers' ability to use the products they purchase, vendors will begin to select more "open" component manufacturers.

    No matter what your choice of OS, this is a good thing. It prevents the premature obsolescence caused by vendors dropping support after a few months - I've seen this happen in Windows XP and MacOS. While this situation may prevent a Linux user from purchasing and using a given product, it also makes other OS users subject to abandonment.

    Consumer protection groups are apparently powerless to protect consumers from this type of fraud, at least for now. The best thing we as technically informed individuals can do it make sure that the word gets out on products in this category.

    If the products are not attractive to consumers because of their limited support life or OS choice restrictions, then vendors will put pressure on the supply channel to change the status quo.

  • Why ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rainer_d (115765) on Monday November 22 2004, @10:42AM (#10888307) Homepage
    > basically, the wireless stuff is owned by someone
    > else, licensed by Intel.

    That's your guess - but Intel declined to comment on that.
    IMO, that's really too much BS'ing for such a little piece of code.
    The reason why someone might want to include the firmware in the distribution is (perhaps) to allow network-installs via wireless.
    If you're only net-connection is via a wireless nic, you can't go to some website and download it first....

    Rainer
  • How about scantily-clad geek-girls on Times Square and other popular public places with the 'Open Firmware!' written on their panties?..

    No? Ah, well, just a thought...

  • Get a number of OSS organizations/communities together, and apprach all the mainstream wireless vendors with an offer for free advertising and/or status as the 'recommended' or even 'official' wireless vendor/brand for that organization/community to the first vendor to *fully* open their hardware and provide full free distribution rights to all required components/firmware/whatever. I'm sure there are at least some vendors who would be pleased as punch to have places like slashdot recommending them.
  • Fortunately, you don't need flowery prose or concise diction to be an effective advocate for change. In fact, you don't even need to be able to speak or write in English or any other language. All you need to do is keep your wallet in your pocket: if you buy a product that needs firmware, and it's not available on terms you can accept, you are part of the problem. Like it or not, once you buy a product, you have no further influence on its maker. They've got your money and they really don't care what yo

    • Re:How to be an effective advocate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by runderwo (609077) * <runderwo&mail,win,org> on Monday November 22 2004, @12:16PM (#10889254)
      All you need to do is keep your wallet in your pocket
      That's a nice sentiment, but it's only part of the picture. If you do that, then the company doesn't even know that you were a potential customer, so nothing has been lost to them from their perspective.

      The best approach is to keep your wallet in your pocket or buy from a competitor, and then contact a human at the company that you didn't buy from and give them a detailed explanation why you chose their competitor instead. This way you actually get attention, because from their perspective the sale came straight out of their pocket into a competitor's. If they won't listen to that sort of reasoning, they're going to sink anyway.

  • Crosslicensed patents (Score:3, Insightful)

    by barrkel (806779) on Monday November 22 2004, @01:07PM (#10889804) Homepage
    Chances are high that there's a criss-crossing web of cross-licensed patents which prevents second-order licensing (i.e. making the "thing" - in this case firmware) freely available to people who want to make it freely available - recursively.

    As an aside, I imagine that's going to be a strategy that Microsoft is going to use in the future to fight Linux.
  • You know, we've all heard it: Sorry, your ATI card cannot run X accelerated on your computer, and the svideo port is just a lump of metal because we licenced that technology from someone else and cannot redistribute it, even though our drivers won't work in your computer. Sorry, your nvidia card won't work in the latest kernel and would be useless to any kernel developer, because we licenced that technology from someone else and cannot redistribute it...

    I'm sure I could go on, but you get the point. Imagine going out for dinner and it makes you sick because it has *shrug* powdered peanuts in it. Next time, you ask for no peanuts, only to be told "Sorry, we licenced this recipe from somebody else and do not have permission to vary it, even though the current version is useless to you". There is no way you would put up with that, at the least you would walk out.

    Yet for some reason in IT we accept that excuse as if nvidia hadn't just negotiated the contract that does not permit them to redistribute only weeks beforehand. Nvidia, ATI and intel are only getting away with this excuse because we tolerate it. If we instead refuse to buy the products then you can bet the next time they negotiate licencing, all the problems disappear.

    You might think we are a too small group to make a difference in this regard, but you'd be wrong. You would be right that few people use linux, and even fewer user OpenBSD, but what propotion of those people have strong influence over large IT budgets? Viewed in terms of dollars controlled instead of products sold and suddenly you're talking much bigger bikkies.

  • The Tao of Programming (Score:3, Funny)

    by ddent (166525) on Monday November 22 2004, @05:42PM (#10892644) Homepage
    "Hardware met Software on the road to Changtse. Software said: ``You are Yin and I am Yang. If we travel together we will become famous and earn vast sums of money.'' And so the set forth together, thinking to conquer the world.

    Presently they met Firmware, who was dressed in tattered rags and hobbled along propped on a thorny stick. Firmware said to them: ``The Tao lies beyond Yin and Yang. It is silent and still as a pool of water. It does not seek fame, therefore nobody knows its presence. It does not seek fortune, for it is complete within itself. It exists beyond space and time.''

    Software and Hardware, ashamed, returned to their homes.
    "
    (Credit: Tao of Programming [canonical.org])
    • Someone, somewhere would think a general purpose RF transmiter/reciever would be cool, and make it. And it's 100% illegal.

      And it would the fault of that someone. You can also build RF equipment with resistors, transistors, etc., but we don't blame the suppliers.

    • Re:Not because it's licensed by someone else... (Score:5, Informative)

      by emmavl (202243) on Monday November 22 2004, @09:41AM (#10887788)
      They are NOT asking to open source the driver(s), but to allow free redistribution of the binary firmware.
      • Please mod this up. The BSD team only wants the binary firmware to be freed, not the source, so it can be distributed with the rest of the *BSD system. The firmware is loaded to the hardware every time it's restarted in order for it to work. No one wants the source code for it; it's not needed.

        All of this mess for scraping a couple of bucks on an onboard EEPROM, but still, Intel's position doesn't seem reasonable.

    • Re:Not because it's licensed by someone else... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      > Intel knows what would happen if the firmware was given to OSS community. Someone, somewhere would think a general purpose RF transmiter/reciever would be cool, and make it.

      Nonsense. Nothing prevent you to get those firmware *now* (in fact, you are required to get them to make your device work, and intel don't prevent you to do this, but you have to click 'I Agree' ). What theo wants is the right to distribute them, the right to make OpenBSD work out-of-the-box with intel chipsets.

      Of course, some big
    • Wow ... I can't believe I'm actually giving the FCC a free pass...

      The FCC somehow exerting some pressure has nothing to do with this.

      The FCC does not prohibit the sale of devices. What they do prohibit is using the devices in a disruptive way.

      It is perfectly legal for Intel to sell and give away the firmware. They are just bullshitting for various reasons.

      It's much like P2P in a way. It's not illegal to make it, but some uses of it are prohibited (not that I agree)
    • Then they should make sure the hardware itself is not capable of monitoring illegal frequencies. Someone could reverse engineer the existing drivers to modify the behavior

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.