Intel — Only "Open" For Business 213
Michael Knudsen writes, "Intel still refuses to work with open source projects such that they can provide their users with proper support for Intel's hardware products. As he has done before, Theo de Raadt once again asks users to take action by contacting Intel, telling them what they think of their current policy of not releasing hardware documentation and granting open source projects the right to distribute hardware firmware with their products. Failing to do so only harms users in the way that they risk having unsupported or malfunctioning hardware in their operating system of choice." Read more below.
It's really important that people understand that Intel is only trying to cooperate just enough to make people believe that they're open and doing the right thing. Don't fool yourselves: They are not.
What we need all users of open source software to do is contact Intel and let them know what you think of their current behaviour. If you run a big department and chose another vendor's products over Intel's because it doesn't work in your operating system, let them know, along with how many units they could have sold you. If you are an end user who has had problems when using Intel hardware because of poor support, let them know.
Let them know that their current lack of support will only harm them in the long run because you will be avoiding their products. Let them know that you want your hardware to work out of the box when you have installed your operating system of choice, and how Intel is preventing this with their lack of support.
Intel is not doing you a favor by requiring you to go to a website and download firmware for your hardware. You paid for the hardware, and Intel is thanking you by making it difficult for you to use it. Let Intel know what you think of this.
Why Firmware? (Score:1, Interesting)
Any device firmware is part of the overall BIOS whole, right? Are those open-source? (Even OpenFirmware?) Do distro vendors really need the whole firmware code, or just the interface details (i.e. the specs)? Somebody please clarify
How is this to Intel's advantage? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My letter (Score:3, Interesting)
From: Cal Paterson
To: majid.awad@intel.com, peter.engelbrecht@intel.com
Date: Oct 1, 2006 1:06 PM
Subject: Intel Firmware for the Wireless chips
As an OpenBSD user and "Intel Wireless PRO" owner, I would like you to
release your firmware for the "Intel Wireless PRO" chipset. I have an
IBM/Lenovo Thinkpad that uses this chipset, and I am unable to use it
without the binary blob firmware you provide.
You often say at conferences that you are committed to Open
Source/Free Software, and that you release sourcecode to that effect,
but often times you fail to release critical code, or even
documentation that would make it possible for the community to
re-create that code.
At the Open Drivers Summit, James Ketrenos said:
"If you need to keep IP closed source (for example some whiz-bang
algorithm), document the hardware sufficiently that the community can
provide their own."
This is a fine statement, but it would probably be more meaningful if
Intel would actually do so. The wpi driver for OpenBSD is currently
suffering for lack of documentation from Intel.
Lies and double standards are the currency of your commitment to Open
Source/Free Software as it is.
However, this is a issue that is easily solved. Release the
documentation for this chipset (or, even better, the original code).
[Next time, I'll use the preview button
Re:My Suggestion (Score:2, Interesting)
I've bought a rt2500 and the drivers are not really good. The code is messy enough that the kernel developers won't accept the driver and the driver is missing features such as WPA. They are rewriting it, but the new version will not be accepted into the kernel until the devicescape framework is. I still can't get WPA to work with the beta driver.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't buy the card. I bought the card because there are no better option. It is one of the few that will be supported out of the box with linux since it doesn't require a binary firmware or a binary kernel module. It just isn't ready quite yet.
Re:Intel open enough for me (Score:3, Interesting)
They believe, or their lawyers believe, or the FCC has told them that they can not release the full programing specs to those adapters.
Those wireless adaptors use soft radios. You can change the frequency, transmission power, and goodness knows what else by just changing a register.
Intel runs a huge risk of law suits, products loosing certifications, and possible criminal actions if they release those drivers.
Will Theo indemnify Intel for all damages and criminal liability if they release the information?
The FCC requires unlicensed devices to be not easily modifiable to operate out of band. The ability to go in and change a const or DEFINE MAXPOWER from 0xFE to 0xFF may be considered easily modifiable by the FCC.
You could argue that they should put hardware limits on these chips so they could release them but that wouldn't help for the current adaptors and frankly would add a lot of cost to the chip set while providing no benefit to the users except that they could have "free" as in speech drivers. Of course they can have that now if they use an Orinoco card. And they can have free as in beer drivers now for the Intel chip set. Of course going with hard radios does have some down sides for the user. If the FCC opens up some more space in the band the wifi card works in or changes the power limits a soft radio card can adapt with new drivers while a hard card is stuck.
So what Theo is doing is grandstanding to keep his name in front of people. Why is he complaining. Frankly it is totally with in the spirit of BSD for Intel to grab a BSD driver, modify it, and then offer only a binary of it. And I have to wonder just how important a wifi card set is to the OpenBSD community? OpenBSD is mainly used on servers. Servers don't often use WiFi cards and even if are using OpenBSD on a notebook you have the option of using an Orinoco card.
Theo is choosing to ignore the reality of these regulations because they are inconvenient.
If he really wants this to happen he needs to go before the FCC and what ever the EU, Japanese, Canadian, Australian, and or Chinese equivalent agencies are and get them to rule that releasing the specs will not effect the licence of these devices.
If he can do that then all the wifi chipset makers will have the opportunity to release the specs to the FOSS community.
Other wise he is asking Intel to risk a few million or billion dollars in fines, court costs, and or lost sales so he can have a driver with a license he likes.
Yes it would be great to have totally free wifi drivers. But in this case Intel has some really good legal reasons for releasing only binary blobs.
In other words they are not just trying to be proprietary.
Give them credit for all the documentation that they do release to the FOSS community. From what I hear only the wifi adapters are restricted.
Intel Wireless Motes are OpenSource (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes, but: (Score:3, Interesting)
If, however, you mean that he engaged in a conversation with me where we discussed anything related to those slides (or anything else in the last year), then no.
Oh well. At least my name will show up more on Google now
James