From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 7 18:31:50 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DD516A4C9 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:31:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mureninc@gmail.com) Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com (wx-out-0506.google.com [66.249.82.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981C343D45 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:31:48 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mureninc@gmail.com) Received: by wx-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i27so1123989wxd for ; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:31:48 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=uAEb/s67KAyJbHLbJ1I5FE9APQ9r1Y3vJ2YsE5r/0cYiZnroMSD3uBAVe/MYIXgUbm++nRpdCoZ+3QPWgWO0wl8/hjZabLP5C57deHFTRCdZsAbUvdX+Gvbp818tgIkk8EtPWarI499sbwWWq+93NmHpMqRjstCiTFOxG21uYwk= Received: by 10.70.100.14 with SMTP id x14mr7903888wxb; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.36.16 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Oct 2006 11:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 14:31:45 -0400 From: "Constantine A. Murenin" To: "Matt Emmerton" In-Reply-To: <007101c6e8f3$3e0c7aa0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <007101c6e8f3$3e0c7aa0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensingproblems X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:31:50 -0000 On 05/10/06, Matt Emmerton wrote: > > On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger wrote: > > > On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > > > > Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why > > > > Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? > > > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi > > > > > > The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: > > > > > > This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will > > > work. You need > > > to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to > > > accomplish > > > loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. > > > > > > Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? > > > > Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that > > explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a > > working system. > > It's required by Intel's choice of licence for the firmware for that > wireless NIC. Where did you find that in the man-pages? > > Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with > > the FCC, however. > > > No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the > > firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with > > Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different > > licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware > > under a non-OSS-friendly licence? > > It doesn't. However, most licences allow derivative works to be created > outside of Intel's control. If one of these derivative work allows the > device to be used in a manner that violates FCC rules and regulations, Intel > remains liable because they a) the provider of the hardware device in > question and b) the provider of the initial software (that spawned the > derivative work) As I see it, no matter what Intel does, a) and b) will always be the case -- reverse-engineering efforts still have to use Intel's original software to produce any viable results. I.e. by extending your argument slightly further, Intel is screwed anyway. > There is nothing stopping Intel from releasing the firmware, except for the > legal fear that the FCC will hold them accountable for illegal acts > performed with their device. Even if the original document does not allow one to distribute derivative works, anyone can still post complicated instructions on modifying Intel's binaries such that the device violates the law. I strongly doubt FCC would hold Intel accountable if any user follows those complicated instructions, as it's almost impossible for Intel to control those kind of things. Intel should not write their own law, they should just make sure that customers are unlikely to disrespect FCCs laws. FCC laws, on the other hand, never say that manufacturers have to keep completely secret anything about their wireless devices. Distributing the very same firmware that already available under another licence doesn't have anything to do with one's ability to respect or disrespect the FCC laws. Put it the other way around -- if Intel doesn't distribute the firmware on terms acceptable to the end user, then it basically _forces_ the user to come up with their own firmware, or use some alternative firmwares. And what if alternative firmwares violate FCC? Then who's fault is that? It is now clearly Intel's fault, because they've made it legally difficult for the user to use the original Intel firmware. I.e. Intel is better off distributing the firmware under a BSD or ISC licence, unless it wants problems with their devices with the FCC. Cheers, Constantine.