Intel Accused of Being an "Open Source Fraud" 153
Binary-Blob writes "Kernal Trap has an article up in which some key OpenBSD developers accuse Intel of being an open source fraud. The issue stems from the prevalence of firmware 'blobs' in open source projects, and OpenBSD's reluctance to use them unless they are distributed freely and without restrictions. Leading project creator Theo de Raadt offers that Intel should follow the example of other companies in the market: 'Intel must do this firmware grant in the same way that Adaptec, Atmel, Broadcom, Cirrus Logic, Cyclades, QLogic, Ralink, and LSI and lots of other companies have granted distribution firmware to be used by others.' He concluded by requesting that the open source community contact Intel to help get them to change their policies"
BSD confirms it (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Conviction at the cash register could positively affect other notorious outfits like ATI and nVidia.
I rather prefer TdR's "don't be a jerk" campaign to RMS's "your thinking is false: I shake my fist at you and call you 'unethical'" approach.
Possibly more a stylistic difference than anything else, but technical folks seem to make screechy evangelists, and do better to cleave to the pragmatic angle.
Re:News at 6 !!! Film at 11 !!! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent severely underrated at +3 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least former have stated why they can't go Open Source. And even releasing specs (which are incomplete) would help little: DirectX 7/8/9 which requires special special software from Microsoft in driver.
Intel on other side always try to push aside Open efforts. Against Open BIOS supported amongst many vendors AMD - it has released EFI. EFI theoretically is also Open Source, but primirily designed to
help intel? (Score:1, Funny)
Yeah, Intel will just love that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing we haven't seen before... (Score:2)
Any relation to this article? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Any relation to this article? (Score:4, Funny)
At least that's my take on it. We"d have to consult with the
Re: (Score:2)
It's only reasonable and expected that they would (under appropriate license) distribute the original and the improvements together so everyone can benefit.
/. Shrink (Score:2)
The interface is the product (Score:2, Insightful)
Where do you draw the line?? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Just download this firmware blob" is one level, then "just load this microcode". If you're using a Xilinx FPGA running a downloadable CPU core, should that be treated as yet another CPU (ie a sealed blob) or should the downloadable core be considered firmware/microcode? As we get more and more interesting hardware, the boundaries are only going to get more blurred.
Even regular CPUs have an interface (the instruction set etc) and their inner workings are sealed from the software developers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use Java as an argument for accepting Intel's actions. Sun's actions are also, at best, dubious. Yes, they are to the short term advantage of many people...but the long term benefit appears distinctly dubious. (Personally I switched to Python as soon as it
Re: (Score:2)
The inner workings are usually published in great detail, because they are critical to writing efficient code and compilers for the processor. Once you know the full details of how to optimise code for a CPU, you know more or less what it's operational schematic is. Any academic researcher in chip design could sketch out the architecture of the Athlon64 based on the manuals provided
Re: (Score:2)
You also don't know:
What signal paths operate under which micro-ops
any "skeletons in the closet" being worked around with microcode
Same goes for the binary driver blobs. I'm somewhere between with Intel and with Theo on this.
Binary drivers allow you to hide tweaks that are needed to ensure operation but that you don't want as general public knowledge.
-nB
Re: (Score:2)
That's a legitmate gripe, but I think Theo's main concern here is that the BSDs can't even freely distribute the blob-- a blob which only works with one piece of hardware, and which does not reveal any trade secrets (since it's in binary form). Yet these very same vendors go to OSS conferences and preach about their "openness". That's when it becomes apparent that their real goal is getting cheap, if no
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly the problem. While in an ideal world, absolutely everything is laid bare for examination, in our less than ideal world, a reasonable compromise might be that the firmware for the device can be a binary blob if it must be, but the API for the device functionality should be open. After all, that blob could as easily be stuck in a ROM on the board or even burned into one of the ASICs. The only reason it isn't is cost cutting.
The problem comes when a company (such as intel) CLAIMS that they are
Re:The interface is the product (Score:5, Informative)
Because the source code for firmware is completely useless to all but 5 people on the planet. The firmware isn't the driver, the firmware is just a binary chunk that "SHOULD" be burned into eprom on the hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not leave this on the legal fringes ?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Not clear to me why they care about distribution of the binary. Maybe they just do
Re: (Score:2)
I've never bought into the philosophy of "we can't guess until we try."
You already are. You can skip the step of going to court and spending huge ammounts of money...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The other alternative is to just reverse engineer the blobs, it really aint that hard.
Thanks for volunteering.
Re: (Score:2)
SRAM vs. flash memory (Score:1)
Is SRAM to hold the microcode really that much cheaper than flash memory to hold the microcode, even when you figure in lost sales and tarnishment of the brand to users of alternative operating systems?
Re: (Score:2)
No benefit at all? Not even increased sales by marketing to customers who demand [wikipedia.org] hardware that is compatible with minority operating systems? If Intel managers have made the decision to ignore this market by refusing to distribute the microcode in nonvolatile form on the card and refusing to license the microcode for distribution with minority operating systems, then Intel deserves the lo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In a case like this, it is the smart thing to do. Any company is more likely to give "binary blobs" instead of source code. de Raadt has more chance of getting what he asks for this way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If that is his stance, then there doesn't seem to be any reason why he should settle from the outset for anything less than what his stated goals are. You can't negotiate upwards when you're losing.
Strategically I see what you are saying, but ideologically a
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the Grandparent was better. Code doesn't deliver much; sorry to say and sorry to disappoint.
If you don't know what is going on in the black box, some magic numbers combined with structures don't really help. It might work, but it might as well break one day or another.
Plus, you need to make a distinction between interface documentation (that would become the driver), which OpenBSD has been asking continuously for; and the firmware, that - for cost
Re:The interface is the product (Score:5, Informative)
The "blob" part is like the Nvidia binary drivers for X11.
What Theo is asking for is to be allowed to re-distribute the firmwares
for the chips, so that you can use the network card for installs, for instance.
If you are required to go through a webpage and click Yes before you can use
your network card, then it's pretty much useless for installs unless you already
had another network card in there already.
Then, on top of this, he seems to want the specs for the API used to talk to
this firmware-driven hardware, so that they can write a driver of their own.
Big difference there.
* Firmware - please allow us to redistribute verbatim copies of it.
* API - docs in order to write free drivers.
These are two things needed in order to get those intel cards going.
Since the firmware in one way or another already is available on the
net or on the CD in windows-format, there really shouldn't have to be
such a problem to allow redistribution of it. For the API's, everyones
guess as to why you'd need to keep them secret is as good as theirs.
As he states somewhere, not getting these two parts makes the card
unusable anyhow, so there's nothing to lose really.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So where is Linux's ABI for driver-writers?
Seems like Intel isn't the only one who is unwilling to make a committment here.
Re: (Score:2)
I kindof doubt that. Their attitude toward DRM shows they are willing to live with closed hardware and firmware, without any intentional thwarting of closed-system developers. I think the Linux gang are simply not willing to make interface committments.
Also IIRC a stable ABI would force various kernel structures to be set in stone,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He's asking for the right to freely
distribute the blob instead of requiring
the user to click through a license
agreement to download the blob.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't a patent be enough to cover this?
Re: (Score:2)
It is the FCC.
This is about wifi cards.
Intel and some other manufactures use soft radios for their wifi cards. They use soft radios because it is cheap and very flexible. If you want to sell that product in a different market you just change some values in a register and you are transmitting on a different frequency an or with a different power setting.
Just like every other none licenced radio transmitter these must not be "easily tunable". Ie they can not have a
Re: (Score:2)
What I really presume is that most of these decisions are made by managers who don't know what's important, so they are practicing CYA. I see no reason to look for a deeper explanation. Amd if you
OpenBSD and the UN (Score:3, Funny)
Or we'll call you really, really, really dirty names.
There, however, seems to be a small hole in the plan
As good a time as any to revisit UDI. (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, but UDI seemed to get submerged.
The article URL (Score:2)
Sorry, I didn't quote the URL in the parent post (so slashdot removed it).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
However, with Microsoft's gradually losing market share -- even if it's a slight loss now, I expect it to grow exponentially when Vista hits the streets and Microsoft moves increasingly to the software-by-subscription model -- it is in v
Open drivers are good for the manufacturer (Score:1)
Their products get good support, and good drivers written by others; and they also get more sales without spending money in marketing (unless your product is a mess; if that's your case, you've got a different problem
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all of your friends run Linux. In the real world, not that many people really do. The number gets reduced even more significantly when start discounting servers, which still need drivers, but a much smaller subset of them (no one sane runs a server over 802.11, and servers h
Re: (Score:2)
As far as that goes, though, you can often license specs from hardware companies in these cases. You'll be forced to sign an NDA, meaning that you can't release the source or specs, but it would mean you can fix problems.
RTFA, etc... (Score:5, Informative)
Tasty kernels (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Security (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Security is not just one of the chief concerns of the BSD crowd, it is one of Theo's chief concerns. If he's not asking for open blobs, it's because they aren't a security concern.
Intel is being unreasonable (Score:2, Insightful)
code of the firmware. Intel are instractible here, so owners of Intel wireless devices needs to personally accept a license
before downloading the firmware. As an example: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php [sourceforge.net]
As for open source drivers: OpenBSD wants hardware documentation, not a Linux driver, so that they can write their own drivers.
Intel claims that they are open source friendly and gi
Theo.... (Score:1)
My server does love OpenBSD though.
Newsflash (Score:2)
Tom
Ha-Ha morons (Score:2, Funny)
You are fighting AGAINST the people you know ?
And this "the people" is not "people" in like "some and the others" or a socialist, communist obscure concept of "people".
This is THE PEOPLE, like in the declaration of independence, like in french revolution, like in WE ALL.
WE are the people. You are fighting against us.
Please mention a few names of persons or organisations that have fought against the people and won, from any point in history.
Silence ? you got my
Intel Open Source: Never gonna happen (Score:2)
It's amazing to me how many people think bullying and mass-emailing is going to get a krufty old-school company like Intel to do ANYTHING. Even IBM isn't much of an exception, because they keep their proprietary and open source stuff carefully separated, and Sun's OpenSparc was already an open standard before they release the source code. These companies have markets much larger than open source users that don't care at all about open source!
In my opinion, the only way we're ever going to have truly ope
defeatist attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But what a pipe dream eh? Sure a bunch of hobbiests in their sheds can come up with some pretty cool designs, and even build some toys, but there is something they cannot do: mass production. Why? Well, take plastic moulding for example. It costs about $500,000 just to set up a non-specialized injection company just to make something as simple as a casing for plug.
Supply and demand. "The American Dream." All these things would stomp out open source hardware
Re: (Score:2)
If released as open-source... (Score:2)
Intel is not a monolith (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:I can't see this working (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that this is one of the most popular arguments against Theo? I mean, sure it works under Linux, but Theo develops OpenBSD.
Next time I hear some Linux user going off about how some device isn't supported I'll just argue that "--correct me if I'm wrong-- this device already works in Windows."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clean room design can help you circumvent this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Technically-speaking, do you even need need clean room reverse engineering? As long as you don't copy code (i.e. you don't do anything that's prohibited by copyright statute), I would think you're legally in the clear. In that case, the benefit to doing it clean-room-style is that if the code you wrote happened to be very similar to the code you took apart, you would have documentation that shows that you couldn't have lifted code verbatim, because the person who wrote the code never saw the original.
As
Re:I can't see this working (Score:4, Insightful)
If Microsoft took Apache, then viewed the source and then rewrote it to replace IIS without a clean room method and used their own license, the open source community would go nuts. This is no different. Just because you LIKE the people who are writting the code, that doesn't make it legal or right.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they view the source code to figure out how the HTTP works, and then write their IIS replacement, is that really a violation of the GPL? Wouldn't that pretty much mean that viewing any GPL code makes it i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You CAN view source code and write your own version of the soft
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is different, though. It's not a violation of GPL, it's a violation of copyright. You were given no rights to peek into the application and use the logic within for another non-GPL purpose. The GPL is the only thing granting you rights to that code and it's structure/logic. Technically, you can't 'violate' the GPL. You violate copyright laws. The GPL is just legal permission to use the work in certain wa
Re: (Score:2)
For big apps, yes, but for drivers and stuff like audio and video codecs or document types (*.doc, *.wave, etc.), it would still be the best way to create a infringement free product. Most of the "big
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You need to stop inventing your own clauses for the GPL.
- Looking at GPL code does not engage the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, so something has to be copied before copyright becomes relevant.
- Writing new code after having read GPL code does not engage the GPL either, unless part of the GPL code has been copied into the new code.
The new code doesn't even need to be developed under clean room conditions, so long as t
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not an argument "against theo", it's an argument against expecting Intel to give a shit about what is (in its' eyes) a fringe OS. From Intel's point of view, there simply isn't enough demand to justify changing what they're already doing -- particularly since they're already
Arguments against Theo (Score:2)
He is the FOX news of FOSS.
He is presenting this in the MOST inflammatory way possible and offering only one side of the discussion.
Here is a more balanced view of the problem.
Intel and many other manufactures of wifi cards use soft-radios. This allows Intel a great deal of flexibility in what frequencies and how much power the radios can use to transmit. If the FCC opens up a different band or if Intel wants to sell the card in a different country with different regs al
Re: (Score:2)
meaning it is extremly simple to choose a "better" country for you broadcasting rules if the
current one doesn't allow what you like. How come the FCC dont raid those manufactorers?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Intel allow such high power outputs? Well there are licensed wireless networks. They are allowed to use different frequencies and more power than unlicensed. This allows Intel to use the same chip set for both custom
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
i.e.
From: http://damien.bergamini.free.fr/ipw/ [bergamini.free.fr]
"I've started to work on a driver for Intel® PRO/Wireless 3945ABG network adapters, as found in recent Centrino(TM) laptops. Needless to say, this driver won't require any binary-only user-space daemon to operate, contrary to
Re:I can't see this working (Score:4, Insightful)
The cards won't run without the firmware, not in Linux, not in BSD, not anywhere. Intel forbids distributing the firmware without agreeing to
a restrictive contract. Some Linux distributions happily agree to that contract, and restrict their users by doing this. OpenBSD does not
want to restrict their users, so they don't agree to the Intel contract. They want Intel to give permission to freely distribute the firmware files.
Speaking of pulling things off (Score:3, Funny)
I've never been so insulted in all my life (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
correct me if I'm wrong-- these cards already work in Linux.
IIRC they require a binary only blob that runs in userspace, and it's x86 only. Even if it was open source, I can understand why they'd want to do it in userspace given that the Linux driver ABI is such a moving target.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just the guy in charge likes to piss on everything more than anything in the world.
There is nothing you can do right for Theo, be you Genesi or Jesus himself.
Re: (Score:2)