Contributed by johan on from the stick-it-to-the-bad-guys dept.
Damien Bergamini (damien@) has committed an update to the man page for the iwn(4) wireless device. The update describes a firmware update by Intel.
As you know, Intel refuses to grant distribution rights without contractual obligations, so OpenBSD cannot include the firmware file and the users have to download it on their own.
For further reading please see this article here on Undeadly which explains the matter in depth.
(Comments are closed)
By Anonymous Coward (82.101.210.49) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (71.126.39.55) on
http://intellinuxwireless.org/tar.php?p=iwlwifi&f=README.iwlwifi-4965-ucode&a=iwlwifi-4965-ucode-228.57.2.23.tgz
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.101.210.49) on
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (89.27.61.5) on
I was reading that link and I think this part is not ok
"No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted."
Comments
By Mike Swanson (76.121.21.10) on
>
> I was reading that link and I think this part is not ok
>
> "No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted."
None of which is actually pushed by the OpenBSD developers, they just want redistribution rights.
Which from that file, seems like it should be possible, but I'd rather look at the original source rather than some "Intell Wifi on Linux" site.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (71.126.39.55) on
The file linked above IS the readme associated with the original source. If you look up the Whois information on intellinuxwireless.org, you will see that it's owned by the Intel Corportation. It's also where Damien obtained the firmware (see his commit message linked in the article).
By Anonymous Coward (89.27.61.5) on
> >
> > I was reading that link and I think this part is not ok
> >
> > "No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted."
>
> None of which is actually pushed by the OpenBSD developers, they just want redistribution rights.
>
> Which from that file, seems like it should be possible, but I'd rather look at the original source rather than some "Intell Wifi on Linux" site.
It is not possible to read just one part of a license. If they distribute it, they also agree to not reverse engineer it.
Atleast in some drivers there have been efforts to reverse engineer.
By tedu (udet) on
> >
> > I was reading that link and I think this part is not ok
> >
> > "No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted."
>
> None of which is actually pushed by the OpenBSD developers, they just want redistribution rights.
What we want is free software. Those restrictions are not free.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (2a01:198:25d:0:20a:e4ff:fe32:17b2) on
It's not software. It's firmware. Redistribution rights should be enough.
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (128.237.231.106) on
The license doesn't only grant redistribution rights. It also contains a "limited patent license". And according to the FAQ at
Intel plans to sue you for patent infringement if you use the firmware in a proprietary commercial product.Comments
By Anonymous Coward (2a01:198:25d:0:20a:e4ff:fe32:17b2) on
> contains a "limited patent license". And according to the FAQ at
>
> Intel plans to sue you for patent infringement if you use the firmware
> in a proprietary commercial product.
This is funny. I wonder if they do that willingly... I mean, saving
the few cents for the EEPROM. If the firmware came with/on the
hardware, they couldn't do that...
They're just crazy.
By Anonymous Coward (71.126.39.55) on
A recent US Supreme Court ruling might be relevant:
Basically, since Intel has licensed the firmware to be used in any open source operating system, the ruling suggests that Intel may have implicitly licensed the firmware to be used by any vendor who incorporates that open source operating system into a proprietary commercial product.So, if Intel did sue you for patent infringement, the odds are pretty good that you could win (assuming that you could afford to defend yourself in court).
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.101.210.49) on
That theory is at least dubious, particularly because the post you linked to reads:
"Unfortunately, the Court did not take the opportunity to issue a broad ruling on whether other sorts of labels, or licenses, or contracts might be enough to defeat the patent exhaustion doctrine."
By tedu (udet) on
>
>
> A recent US Supreme Court ruling might be relevant:
>
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/supreme-court-victory-patent-first-sale-doctrine
>
> Basically, since Intel has licensed the firmware to be used in any open source operating system, the ruling suggests that Intel may have implicitly licensed the firmware to be used by any vendor who incorporates that open source operating system into a proprietary commercial product.
>
>
> So, if Intel did sue you for patent infringement, the odds are pretty good that you could win (assuming that you could afford to defend yourself in court).
It would be a whole lot simpler if Intel simply released the firmware with a reasonable license. Until then, it stays out of OpenBSD.
By tedu (udet) on
>
> It's not software. It's firmware. Redistribution rights should be enough.
they are not.
By Brynet (Brynet) on
>
> I was reading that link and I think this part is not ok
>
> "No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted."
They didn't reverse engineer the firmware, or decompile/disassemble it.. it's loaded onto the device as-is.
It's simply redistributed by Damien Bergamini.. who I presume lives in France.
Comments
By hugin (212.198.62.141) on
Yes, and what !
what's the connection between citizenship and firmware ???
Comments
By Colin D. (cdidier) on http://cybione.org/
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (82.101.210.49) on
But that statement only holds when such acts are necessary to achieve "interoperability".
By hugin (212.198.62.141) on
I don't know what Damien have done within and I'm not a layer, but I'm pretty sure, he's not out of the french law.
The law in the US differs from Europe, for instance pattents on softwares...but anyway for a better understanding, you may contact him.
Assuming Intel has registered their product/pattent in the US, therefore that does prevail only in US territory, so as to europeen laws aren't a concern in the US, etc.
Micro$oft has been nailled in Europe, never in North America!(to my knowledge, Intel is scheduled for the hammer as well !).
Comments
By Brynet (Brynet) on
>
> I don't know what Damien have done within and I'm not a layer, but I'm pretty sure, he's not out of the french law.
>
> The law in the US differs from Europe, for instance pattents on softwares...but anyway for a better understanding, you may contact him.
>
> Assuming Intel has registered their product/pattent in the US, therefore that does prevail only in US territory, so as to europeen laws aren't a concern in the US, etc.
>
> Micro$oft has been nailled in Europe, never in North America!(to my knowledge, Intel is scheduled for the hammer as well !).
>
How many times does it have to be repeated? the firmware was NOT decompiled.. it was NOT reverse engineered.
The firmware image is distributed as-in.
Linux ignorance is confusing the difference between a driver and firmware again.
By Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd (weerd) on http://www.weirdnet.nl/openbsd/
>
> I was reading that link and I think this part is not ok
>
> "No reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly of this software is permitted."
I think it's actually this bit :
Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
The file as it is redistributed now is fine (in binary form, without modification). Have a look at /sys/dev/microcode, where all such firmwares should end up in the end. Those are obviously not the original binaries without modification.
But, IANAL
By Anonymous Coward (82.101.210.49) on
I'm not surprised Intel has not cooperated with the OpenBSD community, as the community apparently is unable to adequately explain its demands.
Comments
By Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd (weerd) on http://www.weirdnet.nl/openbsd/
>
> I'm not surprised Intel has not cooperated with the OpenBSD community, as the community apparently is unable to adequately explain its demands.
Intel should be cooperating with the OpenBSD developers. The community is larger than just the developers, not everyone in the comunity fully understands the intricacies of the issues at hand. Some random comments on undeadly (including my own) do not represent the requirements OpenBSD has for firmware distribution.
Intel knows what OpenBSD demands (eg. the firmware for fxp(4) NICs is correctly licensed), but in the case of these wireless firmwares they chose to be incompatible with what OpenBSD requires for inclusion.
By Otto Moerbeek (otto) on http://www.drijf.net
>
> I'm not surprised Intel has not cooperated with the OpenBSD community, as the community apparently is unable to adequately explain its demands.
Beware: I never looked at this license in detail.
OpenBSD only want to redistribute things in base that have no strings attached: users should be ablt to do with the software what they want. In this case, there are strings attached for the users.
By Dean (63.228.83.29) on
I tried pkg_add -ui http://<link to file.tgz> and it didn't work.
I then did a pkg_delete iwn-firmware-5.0 ;success
and a pkg_add http://<link to file.tgz> ;success
Is that the best way, or did I miss something?
And thanks to Damien and all the rest of the wireless and OBSD developers!
Comments
By Anonymous Coward (98.127.110.254) on
Including an error message would've been extremely helpful here.
By Anonymous Coward (2a01:348:108:100:230:18ff:fea0:6af6) on
> I tried pkg_add -ui http://<link to file.tgz> and it didn't work.
-u scans ${PKG_PATH} and works out which of the packages you have installed can be updated to new ones, and calls pkg_add -r to update them.
> I then did a pkg_delete iwn-firmware-5.0 ;success
> and a pkg_add http://<link to file.tgz> ;success
>
> Is that the best way, or did I miss something?
> And thanks to Damien and all the rest of the wireless and OBSD developers!
you want pkg_add -r to update here.