Contributed by merdely on from the new-wifi-goodness dept.
Damien Bergamini (damien@) writes:
A couple hours ago, I committed a new driver named iwn(4) for Intel Wireless WiFi Link 4965AGN adapters present in many Core 2 Duo laptops (like the ThinkPad T61p).
Please test it and report failure/success directly to me.
I'm especially interested in test reports from users running amd64 on their Core 2 Duo but all other test reports are welcome too.
Notice that the 802.11n functionalities are not yet supported because some work is required in our net80211(9) layer first. My plan is to work on 802.11n features (mainly frames aggregation, block ACKs, 40MHz channels) only after I get WPA2-PSK working. I've also started to work on a driver for Ralink's RT2860 chipset that I'd like to finish first.
Like with previous ipw(4), iwi(4) and wpi(4) drivers, the iwn(4) driver requires a firmware that can't be redistributed with the base system (see its LICENSE). Please read the man page to know where you can download it from.
Get to testing this new driver and send damien@ your feedback.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (85.178.96.181) on
--
Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
--
Ok, ounds logical, lets read further...
--
* Redistributions must reproduce the above copyright notice and the
following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials
provided with the distribution.
--
Could be done inside the manpage
--
* Neither the name of Intel Corporation nor the names of its suppliers
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
--
OpenBSD never promoted anything except freedom :)
--
* No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software
is permitted.
--
That's nothing OpenBSD has to garant. If Users violate this it's their problem.
So I don't get the problem so far. There's no part where it's written that the Operating System has to ENSURE nobody reverses the files or so.
So pls. point out the issue course this license is from 2006 and the last license by intel I#ve read wasn't from 2006 but earlier...
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.82.70.110) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (85.178.120.19) on
I don't see anything wich helps.
Other Firmware is binary only as well and theo said if JUST the Firmware is Binary only he doesn't care.
So for me this Intel License looks ok.
I would thank everybody who could point out the issue 'course maybe it's a translation issue I've to face but as far as I understand the License it doesn't require anything but a notice in the Manpage.
Comments
By jsg (210.15.216.215) on
>
> I don't see anything wich helps.
> Other Firmware is binary only as well and theo said if JUST the Firmware is Binary only he doesn't care.
>
> So for me this Intel License looks ok.
>
> I would thank everybody who could point out the issue 'course maybe it's a translation issue I've to face but as far as I understand the License it doesn't require anything but a notice in the Manpage.
For a start it does not allow modification or source distribution, which are required to allow the firmware to be included. This does not have to mean assembler files to whatever micro the asic is based around, it often turns out to be hex encoded header files, the Intel license forbids this for example.
Take a look at http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/ for a list of firmware and associated licenses that _are_ acceptable.
Comments
By Matthew Dempsky (70.143.86.12) on
> For a start it does not allow modification or source distribution,
Neither does the atu(4) firmware license. It only grants redistribution and only as object code. From src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atu-license:
* Copyright 2004 Atmel Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Redistribution and use * of the microcode software ("Firmware") is permitted provided that the following * conditions are met: * 1. Firmware is redistributed in object code only. * 2. Any reproduction of Firmware must contain the above copyright notice, * this list of conditions and the below disclaimer in the documentation * and/or other materials provided with the distribution; and * 3. The name of Atmel Corporation may not be used to endorse or promote products * derived from this Firmware without specific prior written consent.By Pau (84.191.205.211) on
Of course we'd like to have the source for all of them, but they can do not harm where they are.
On the contrary, some linux distributions like "Ubuntu", add the firmware not as a library but right to the kernel! THAT is a problem.
Comments
By Matthew Dempsky (76.235.124.214) on
> what's your problem with the firmware? why don't you complain also about all the ROMs in your computer? It's full with them.
Strawman argument. The OpenBSD developers have no concern with binary-only firmware. The issue is over redistribution rights.
> Of course we'd like to have the source for all of them, ...
No, actually Theo and the others have expressly stated that they could not care less.
> ... but they can do not harm where they are.
Exactly.
Comments
By Pau (84.191.203.47) on
> Strawman argument. The OpenBSD developers have no concern with binary-only firmware. The issue is over redistribution rights.
hawhaw... yes, it is. I think we're saying the same thing but I maybe expressed myself bad. "Yes, you are right"
> > Of course we'd like to have the source for all of them, ...
> No, actually Theo and the others have expressly stated that they could not care less.
I think they are just fed up of the issue...
> > ... but they can do not harm where they are.
> Exactly.