Intel To Release Next-Gen BIOS Code Under CPL

An anonymous reader writes "Intel said today that it plans to release the 'Foundation code' of its next-generation firmware technology -- a successor to the PC BIOS -- under the Common Public License (CPL), an open source license, later this year. More than 20 years old, the BIOS (Basic Input-Output System) is the oldest software technology in PC platforms. Intel says its firmware Foundation code, a result of a project codenamed Tiano, 'provides that the successor to the BIOS will be based on up-to-date software technology.' The Foundation code is designed to be extended with new features and services, such as improved platform manageability, serviceability, and administrative interfaces which are too complex to implement in the old BIOS environment, according to Intel."

Comments

An ode to DRM FUD

[stecoop]

Will this end the fear of DRM'd BIOS? With the source available then any additions added to the bios can be reversed. I wonder if Intel is countering something in regards to statements made by Microsoft and Sun saying that hardware will be free?

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[k4_pacific]

Chances are, flashing your PC with this BIOS instead of the MS approved DRM one will prevent your PC from sharing data with DRMed Windows PCs. So, DRMed if you do, DRMed if you don't...

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Data sharing is important, and I understand your point completely. How then do we counter this? If nothing else, we're somehow assured (presumably) that we can at least run non-drm software. From there, it'll still be a matter of reverse-engineering any DRM scheme...kind of like a more extensive MS Word compatibility layer.

I do have confidence in the Open Source hacker army, though, and that if there's a way, they'll figure it out.

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[Amiga Lover]

Chances are, flashing your PC with this BIOS instead of the MS approved DRM one will prevent your PC from sharing data with DRMed Windows PCs. So, DRMed if you do, DRMed if you don't..

If it works that way it'll also prevent a DRMd PC from sharing data with those linux servers becoming all so common nowadays. Works both ways.

In the end all depends on who ends up worse off.

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[Rick Zeman]

Will this end the fear of DRM'd BIOS? With the source available then any additions added to the bios can be reversed. I wonder if Intel is countering something in regards to statements made by Microsoft and Sun saying that hardware will be free?

Err, that just meant that the end user wouldn't be paying directly for the hardware, just indirectly. Someone will still be writing a check to Intel for all of their components. I can't see how Intel would look on that other than favorably. That would actually mean that more hardware would get sold because boxes wouldn't be multi-purposed.

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[cybersk4nk]

I'm really not that sure about that. If you want to make sure your iTunes, or other DRMed music downloads still work, granted, it might be a problem. But open formats are open and always will be. Swapping the OS or BIOS to a non drmed one will still let you transfer files in an open and free way. JPGs for instance, should still transfer between DRMed and non-DRMed PCs through FTP for example. I just don't see how a DRM bios could affect this functionality. TCP/IP itself is designed to be platform independant connections and transfers. I believed the MS/DRMed BIOS strategy is to encrypt the files at the filesystem layer. So if you can log on and get the unencrypted version of the file, you can transfer it to someone without a DRM machine and the DRM info will be stripped. If new file formats are created in the future with built in DRM, this might be an issue. But as readers know, even iTunes was crackable. Ever since commercial software came out, publishers have tried to prevent copying. It's never worked in 30 years and I predict it never will. Every commercial game ever realeased has been cracked. I'm willing to bet on it. Copying will continue forever, and if big co's implement the scary DRM schemes that everyone is talking about, I'm going to hand design my own PCs without DRM and become a billionare. I'm sure many ./ers and other would pay good money to have a properly designed system with modern components that is DRM free. Heck, I would rather use my current computers for 10 years than to succumb to newer, faster machines that are completely locked down. I really hope Intel gets it right this time when they update the BIOS. I hope they implement what sun machines and other workstations have had for years, like serial consoles, better universal, standard booting support from any device etc. Also, I really hope they dump the old crappy VGA text mode once and for all and make the computer boot in SVGA framebuffer by default.

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[sadler121]

I'm sure many ./ers and other would pay good money to have a properly designed system with modern components that is DRM free.

Of course untill the **AA's use there bought congress critters to pass a law stating that anyone who uses a DRM free machine is violating the law.

Re:An ode to DRM FUD

[mrchaotica]

The general idea is that Microsoft wants to use it to prevent those Linux servers from becoming common.

In fact, that's why people are opposed to MS DRM in particular - they dislike losing their property rights, and especially dislike losing them in the name of corporate profit!

CPL

[devinoni]

Seems the CPL is popular these days. Even Microsoft uses it for their opensource projects (WiX and WTL). Not to mention IBM who is the CPL author.

Re:CPL

[Whyzzi]

Ok. So then, what is the big difference between the CPL and the BSD license?

Re:CPL

[Anonymous Coward]

So then, what is the big difference between the CPL and the BSD license?

Copyleft, and a "we license our patents only if you don't sue us with yours" clause.

Re:CPL

[geminidomino]

From the license:
When the Program is made available in source code form:

a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and

b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the Program.


And:


A Contributor may choose to distribute the Program in object code form under its own license agreement, provided that:

a) it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and

b) its license agreement: ...

iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.


Looks like it's just as viral as the GPL, just less frothing behind it. I could be reading it wrong, but it doesn't look like it is any less different from BSD License than the GPL is.

Re:CPL

[HokieJP]

If I understand the license correctly, there is a key difference that you're missing:

In the first passage you cite, it need only be made available under the CPL if released in source code form. So, you could distribute binaries of the code under any license you want. The satement that the new license "complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement" isn't the same as saying you have to release it under the same license. It just means you can't violate any of the conditions of that license (say, about warantees or whatever).

Credibility for Intel

[SeanTobin]

Intel has been slowly losing credibility in my (and possibly others) eyes for some time now. Processor ID's sucked. However, they 'did the right thing' and got rid of them. Their implimentation of 64-bit computing sucked (or was ahead of its time) but they 'did the right thing' and swiped AMD's :). I used to be a Intel fanatic (yes, I owned several bunny people) and dismissed AMD's processors because of thier floating point performance. AMD wised up and finally gave chase to Intel on all performance matters to the point where I'm now running a AMD processor. I've always been concerened that Microsoft and Intel are a little too friendly, especially in regards to 64-bit windows versions and Microsoft/Intel's chip/release timing.

Anyway, the BIG concern for me on the horizon is the upcoming DRM-from-the-bios-to-the-speaker-cone mentality that some unnamed people are trying to push. If Intel wants to score major bonus points in my book, opening up the bios (or whatever they feel like calling it) could definately do it.

If I know that I can always depend on my computer to do what I tell it to and not what Intel/Microsoft/Belken tell it to do, I will go that route.

Also, to Intel... I'm buying a new server next month. I had decided on AMD. I'm now considering Intel as an option. Now everyone in the marketing department go tell the engineering department to go impliment this!

Re:Credibility for Intel

[ThisNukes4u]

Sorry, but right now Intel isn't a viable option for servers, at least multi-processor ones. The front side bus speed and it being shared kills the performance of the otherwise great Xeon. Opterons are at a decent price range now for 2-4 x42-x46, and they are great performers as well as being 64bit compatiable. Also, the Xeon platform is most likely going to be replaced by whatever Intel's answer to AMD64 is, so upgrading is not too good. On the other hand, the Opteron is here to stay.

Re:Credibility for Intel

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a box full of Bunnypeople that, one summer, will end up strapped to my car's wheels. For how long, who knows...

I took a couple of them, did that, and after enough miles at high enough speeds, the beans started transferring to the extremities, then pieces invariably went bouncing down the road. As I recall, it took around 100mph.

BTW, I have relatively thick 5-spoke alloys, and 4 of them got either a leg or an arm, and since the weight was mostly centered on on the wheel the vibration was minimal.

Oh, I got the bunnies for free as a kind of spiff from a friend who'd make a vendor's sales rep include them for free with each order. 1% over cost plus bunnies... no wonder that rep left!

Re:Credibility for Intel

[Alsee]

If Intel wants to score major bonus points in my book, opening up the bios (or whatever they feel like calling it) could definately do it.

It is a trick. They are publishing the source code, but that source code is USELESS.

If I know that I can always depend on my computer to do what I tell it to and not what Intel/Microsoft/Belken tell it to do, I will go that route.

Then you need to make sure NEVER to let this crap touch your computer! This system is EXACTLY designed to make it impossible to control your own computer. If you change so much as a single instruction then the Trust chip generates a different hash value. With a different hash value the Trust chip cannot decrypt anything. Ultimately you may be denied any internet access at all.

I had decided on AMD. I'm now considering Intel as an option.

Unfortunately AMD is on board with this crap as well. So are Motorola, Transmeta, and even ARM. There's really no good-guys to turn to at this point, but if you want to boycott someone then Intel definitely tops the list. AMD is just following along because they will up and die if the next version of Windows refuses to run on an AMD chip.

-

Not really

[autopr0n]

While the source may be available, that won't mean it can't contain DRM. After all, any good secure system should be secure wether or not the source is visible or not.

Think about it, the fact that you can see the source code to Linux doesn't mean that a regular user has any greater ability to gain root. That's exactly how these new DRM systems work, by taking a way a user's right to be root on their own machine.

Flash your own Tiano BIOS, and on DRM certified mobo's it simply won't run unless its signed by Microsoft or someone.

So this wont help with DRM, but it's still a good thing :P

Re:Not really

[finkployd]

While the source may be available, that won't mean it can't contain DRM. After all, any good secure system should be secure wether or not the source is visible or not.

But no implementation of DRM can be considered a "good secure system". The whole concept is to take PKI and try to keep the private key away from the owner so he/she cannot use it for anything except what the content owner wants you to use it for. This is why MS is trying to stick private keys in hardware. This is why the iTMS DRM removal tool needs to be able to get your key out of either the iTunes software or your iPod.

Trying to do DRM in something completely open source will NEVER work. DRM is security by obscurity, plain and simple.

Finkployd

Re:Not really

[MBCook]

But it CAN be. Because you have the source, you can build a version in which you've stripped out the DRM stuff that you don't want. And THAT would remove the DRM worries.

Of course, as you mentioned, all they have to do is require that the BIOS is signed to prevent the end user from doing that, which would be unfortunate. This also assumes that the open source part is functionally complete (i.e. not a layer ontop of the layer that drives the hardware, which could be closed source so nothing you made could be booted because you lacked that part).

I worry it won't happen, but I would LOVE to be able to tweek my own BIOS code. Imagine if you could do that with the computers you own now. Be able to go back to that old PII and add the ability to boot off of USB, or add LBA to an old PC, or just rearrage that horrid BIOS user interface on that no-name PC in the corner. Or you could disable more stuff you're not using to speed up the boot processor. And there are always patches to the Linux kernel and such to work around buggy BIOSes, think if you could fix that yourself. And corporations wouldn't have to worry about the support nightmare, thanks to that classic phrase in the computer industry "We don't support what we didn't ship". You touch it, YOU'RE responsible, good or bad. And if you change something and they like it, it's open source so they can check it out and implement it and make everyone's life better.

I hope the industry sees the light and allows what I suggested above (something that Linux BIOS is working towards too, in many ways). But even if things end up like they are now, I'll be happy as long as I can flash my own BIOS and it doesn't have to be MS DRMed. Because I'm not buying a computer that is programed to not let me use it.

After all, would you buy a car that you're not allowed to drive? (As a car for everyday use, I'm not talking buying the Bonne & Clyde car or something like that).

Re:Not really

[John Hurliman]

But you can modify the Linux kernel to allow any user to gain root privileges. That's the point of the source code, anyone can rewrite/recompile/reinstall and remove any offending "features" while adding their own modifications.

Re:Not really

[YrWrstNtmr]

Would you buy a car you're not allowed to fix yourself and still retain the warranty? You can drive it all you want, just don't screw with it.

And that's what most people do with their PC. Drive it. Not muck around under the hood and tweak the fuel injectors, or adjust the slope of the ABS initiation.

Re:Not really

[prockcore]

And that's what most people do with their PC. Drive it. Not muck around under the hood and tweak the fuel injectors, or adjust the slope of the ABS initiation.

Ironically, Congress is forcing auto makers to reveal their "precious precious IP" because your average mechanic can't read the chips in your car. Basically auto makers were trying to get you to take your car into the dealer to get an oil change. Congress stepped up and said "that's unfair trade practice".

Re:Not really

[ComputerSlicer23]

I don't think you are correct. If I can control the POST sequence, and I have the Microsoft Software, the system can be broken. Period.

It's the ability to flash the BIOS that will make it happen. At some point, Microsoft will have to trust a piece of hardware. If they trust the software, it's merely a matter of time to find out where the branch is that says "yes this is trustworthy", and change the binary so that branch always takes "trustworthy" choice. Just like if I have access to your GPG binary, I can say that a message I sent you is in fact signed by Microsoft (the element of trust everone forgets is that you have to trust the binary sources, in this case, Microsoft can't, as I can fiddle with them). This is an arms race that Microsoft will always lose, it's just a fact of life.

So they must trust a piece of hardware at some point. That hardware must be untamperable, with no way for me to interject myself between it and the Microsoft hardware. As soon as I can interject myself between Microsoft and that piece of hardware, I've won. If I have access to the BIOS, all I have to do is setup some type of virtualization software (Think VMware). At this point, all I have to do is emulate the piece of hardware, and jigger it to always say: "Trustworthy" (essentially a MITM).

If you don't believe that type of attack is plausible, then remember also, I control the client, at some point, I can attack the PKI system. I have access to the PKI portion. At some point, you must have absolute trust of the PKI system, I have the client, what would it take to beat that system? Does Microsoft keep it's list of keys someplace around (it has to, I can subvert that)? That's like giving me access to the root cert's for your Web Browser. You'll trust my hacker sites if I can insert my key into your list of "trustworthy certs". At some point, if I have access to the boot sequence, I can break the system.

The only way it could be secure is to have the hardware have the list of trustworthy keys and have the hardware never give up control to anything that is considered untrusted.

How does Microsoft check that they are running on such a trusted? At some point, they either have to trust the hardware implicitly (which I can fake), or they have it in software that I can modify. At that point, it's either making an untrustworthy piece of hardware (or emulating one), or fiddling the bits of the software. In the end, DRM is a losing proposition. All DRM systems will be broken.

Microsoft might be able to encrypt the software, and only allow it to be decrypted by modules hardware that has the public key embedded inside. However, somebody will just tear the thing apart, or use an X-ray machine to just extract the public key (which at this point is merely a secret piece of data, not really a public key).

Kirby

Re:Not really

[Alsee]

the point of the source code, anyone can rewrite/recompile/reinstall and remove any offending "features" while adding their own modifications

Nope.

The entire purpose of the new system is to prevent exactly that. Sure you can change the code, but then the firmware chip (trust chip)then reports a "currupted" boot value. The new trusted software will refuse to install. The new trusted files will be encrypted and unreadable. The new websites will give you error messages and be unviewable.

With Trusted Computing the source code becomes useless. The system defeats the GPL.

But to top it all off, Cisco has announced a line of Network Admission Control routers that will deny you any internet access at all. It is billed as "blocking viruses", but what it really does is refuse you a connection unless you are running a Trusted computer and approved software. If you try to use to source to make any chages the hardware reports a "currupted" boot value. As far as the ISP's router is concered you are either infected with a virus or at least vulnerable to a virus.

All new computers sold computers will start shipping with Trust chips installed by default within a year. After 4 years or so essentially all PC's will have been routinely replaced as obsolete. I figure such routers could be generally deployed by ISPs in approximately 2008.

-

Re:Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Good security is well known. The techniques and procedures studied by thousands of expert math and cypher experts.

Now, the private key does have to remain private... this is the secret _you_ keep. This is a secret that _can_ be kept, with safes and locks and armed guards and attack dogs and mine fields and phospate hand gernades and tanks and air craft.

What DRM is trying to do is have a private key that _you_ do not have. _You_ the owner of the computer and all the bits on it are having a secret kept from you.

You have the machine in your own house. Nobody is around to guard against you opening your own computer up and hooking an O-scope to it, or reading out ROM's. Nobody to destroy the computer when the secret key is discovered.

The only thing is a law called the DMCA that says you do not own your own computer. And can go to jail if you illegally modify your own machine to access the bits that you actually own on the machine.

--

Sorry, you have failed to enter the correct password. Please stay seated and remain calm. The police are on the way.

Not again...

[vwjeff]

Processor ID's sucked

I never had a problem with Intel's processor ID. Every networked computer already has a unique MAC address. What is the difference?

Re:Not again...

[Dun Malg]

Processor ID's sucked

I never had a problem with Intel's processor ID. Every networked computer already has a unique MAC address. What is the difference?

MAC addresses can be changed by swapping out a $15 part and in some cases can be changed in firmware, so they're not an effective tracking/identification tool. Processor IDs are hardcoded and unique. Thankfully, they can also be turned off.

Re:Not again...

[SeanTobin]

I never had a problem with Intel's processor ID. Every networked computer already has a unique MAC address. What is the difference?

The big problem that many people had with the processor ID's initially was that you couldn't turn them off. Any program running localy could query your PID and send it off to god knows where. It wasn't until later that they released bios updates that allowed you to turn the feature off.

So, it wasn't the fact that the computer had a uniquely identifiable number (ip address/mac address/whatever), its the fact that you didn't have control over the use of that number.

I can deny you access to my ip address (I just don't connect to your server/use a proxy). I can also deny you access to my mac address (spoofing/proxies/whatnot). The rebellion people had was they couldn't deny programs access to your PID. Now, there wasn't any particular reason to deny programs access to a PID yet but it isn't too hard to think of a few.

Anyway, enough rambling. It was the removal of choice that set people off. We didn't have a choice to not use the feature - Assuming we stuck with Intel processors.

Re:Not again...

[222]

It should also be noted that MAC addresses actually provide required functionality, modern day networking is built around them... For the life of me, i cannot think of any productive use for cpu id's.

Re:Not again...

[afidel]

Actually they could NEVER be turned off all the way. The BIOS patches just disabled them during startup, and Windows didn't turn it back on. But if you knew the correct sequence and a little assembly you could reactivate the PID 'feature' and query the number. I don't think there was ever a real program that did this but there were a few demo pieces that were enough proof of concept to show that it was possible.

Microsoft Support?

[3) profit!!!]

"Microsoft is continuing its commitment to open industry standards by adding EFI boot support to all versions of the Longhorn generation of Windows products," said Tony Pierce, Technical Evangelist of Microsoft's Windows Hardware Innovation Group. "Participation in the collaborative community effort around the Foundation code that Intel is announcing today will help systems manufacturers and firmware companies deliver new and exciting platform innovations to their customers."

I wonder if this is going to be like Microsoft's "support" for Java...

Re:Microsoft Support?

[Alsee]

I wonder if this is going to be like Microsoft's "support" for Java

No, it's more like Microsoft support for Palladium.

As a matter of fact this *is* Microsoft support for Palladium.

Central elements of the system were designed by Microsoft + Intel + the rest of the Trusted Computing Group. This new "Foundation code" *is* the Palladium replacement for BIOS. It is the Trusted Computing foundation.

-

Open bios code wont do you any good.

[autopr0n]

Having an open-source bios wont prevent DRM any more then having an open-source OS will prevent file permission restrictions. The source to Linux wont do you any good without the root password, and the source to the BIOS won't do you any good without a signing certificate on a DRM-enabled motherboard.

Re:Open bios code wont do you any good.

[Brandybuck]

Having an open-source bios wont prevent DRM any more then having an open-source OS will prevent file permission restrictions.

With an Open Source OS, I can hack away those file permissions while retaining full compatiblity with the orginal. Nothing difficult about it. The only reason it hasn't been done, is because file permissions are beneficial to the owner of the system.

If there's DRM in the BIOS that isn't beneficial to the owner, he'll get rid of it if he can. He might not be able to do it himself, but someone else will. If it's possible, of course. It depends on the implementation.

Wonder how it will affect

[ErichTheWebGuy]

the LinuxBios project? I would think little, if at all, since the core goals of the LinuxBios project are so specific (providing instant control of a cluster node), but maybe I am wrong? Perhaps some innovations can flow both ways.

Either way, kudos to Intel.

OpenBoot?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, dare I ask, is wrong with OpenBoot? It's an open standard; it's been around for a long time; and it's used in at least two manufacturers' systems that I can think of. I've also heard reports that some (obscure, probably now defunct) Intel-based PC manufacturers used it in their systems.

Seems to me like a bad case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome.

Re:OpenBoot?

[afidel]

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read about this project several years ago. OpenBoot is Free/free and proven. Not only that but it's hard to imagine a more flexible system since it includes a Turing Complete programming language at its heart =) After you've used OpenBoot the PC BIOS seems so limiting and mundane.

Re:OpenBoot?

[RickHunter]

What's wrong with it? No DRM support (thus, no Microsoft support) and it wasn't invented by Intel. (Thus, no Intel support) It is, however, a far superior system, and yet another reason to get a Mac. (YARTGAM)

Re:OpenBoot?

[pavon]

One of the big features of this new bios is that it is completely backwards compatible (as far as the OS is concerned) with the current BIOS. I don't think that switching OpenFirmware would be quite as seamless of a transistion.

Re:OpenBoot?

[ronaldgminnich]

Why not open boot? Because the "open" means only "open spec".

Open Boot is not Open Source Have you ever wondered why nobody ports it to lots of things? Or why http://www.openbios.org exists? Simple. Open Boot is a marketing name.

Again, Open Boot is NOT Open Source. It's just a cute name that seems to fool lots of people.

But go ahead, prove me wrong: point to the Open Source site for Open Boot.

Re:OpenBoot?

[znu]

Uh, it's an open standard, like TCP/IP or HTTP. Some implementations are open source, some are not. I don't see any conspiracy here.

Great!

[autopr0n]

wow, this is actually pretty cool. Imagine being able to download a bios patch off the 'net that would let you boot the machine directly into Linux, or hell... put a webserver right into the bios chip.

In the future I can see the ultimate "geek" motherboard having a memory-stick or CF card slot for the bios, rather then using chips that aren't often used by consumers. You'd be able to walk down to best buy or Wal-Mart and buy a new bios chip to play around with.

Re:Great!

[bofkentucky]

Anyone know of a webserver written in Forth, I've go an Ultra2 that needs a bios webvserver installed.

Re:Great!

[burns210]

great, now we need to run ad-aware on our bios chips, for fear of spyware and popups generated and the motherboard chip level!

Re:Great!

[PXE Geek]

Forget the BIOS patch. Why boot to Linux when you're already booting to BSD?

With EFI having a built-in TCPIP stack, you can bet that an EFI based Web server is only a recompile away for some people.

PXEGeek

Re:Great!

[CableModemSniper]

Yes.

Sounds good.... but...

[3seas]

... sounds exactly like hype that is bound to be turned into something you do not want, in actuality.

Like the original intent of cookies and the actuality of spyware use...

One of the best ways,

[Anonymous Coward]

it almost seems, to ensure you can write open source software and still make money is to make absolutely certain that your open source software is written in such a way it isn't of any use to anyone unless they buy your expensive hardware to operate with it...

More Info / Linux Power Management

[Landaras]

More information is in a similar article over at News.com.

They mention that proprietary BIOS's is one of the key obstacles to implementing proper power management (ie hibernation) under Linux.

- Neil Wehneman

From the LinuxBIOS mail list earlier today:

[LuxuryYacht]

Ron on the LinuxBIOS list put this best earlier today:

You are not going to get the hardware startup code in Tiano. You're going to get the code that runs on top of the hardware startup code, and gives you a DOS-like startup system.

Don't expect to suddenly see northbridge code on the intel web site. Part of the goal of Tiano/EFI is to make the release of such information unneeded. There is a silver lining. Supposedly, the interfaces from the hidden hardware code to Tiano will be public. This means you can conceivably chuck Tiano and put your own thing in its place, which could be ... a Linux kernel! You might need a small shim from the hidden hardware code to Linux, which could in turn be ... LinuxBIOS!

This is how Linux NetWorx built the Alpha LinuxBIOS:

- hidden hardware
code (Alpha SROM) [ not changed, left in place]

- LinuxBIOS [with Alpha support, minus memory setup code]

- Linux
Worked fine, should work for Tiano platforms. In other words, the binary support code for Tiano could solve some problems for us:

- if we don't get the specs for the Intel chips (likely), then we can just leave the "hidden hardware code" in place, and flash over Tiano,
replacing Tiano with LinuxBIOS. I believe Linux Labs did something like this for their ClearWater port 2 years or so ago.

- Makes porting to other Intel mobos easier.

Why the CPL, not the GPL?
So that 3rd party vendors can add incompatibilities -- err, value --
and charge you for it.

Put another way, Tiano could be a linuxbios payload. I don't have much
use for a Tiano/EFI payload, however. Tiano/EFI is very complex and if
I'm going to put a complex thing like that into flash I'd much rather
it be linux. I don't want something that's most of the work of an OS
but not much of the capability, which pretty much describes Tiano/EFI.

I'm intrigued that they are open sourcing it. I had for years only
heard that it would be available under a type of NDA. I think LinuxBIOS
is part of the push for open sourcing this type of software. But I
doubt you're going to see Phoenix et. al. open source their
'value-added' Tiano, which means a source fork is built into the model.
That's trouble for us as customers -- we already suffer daily with all
these BIOS extensions and undocumented, hidden gotchas. We already say
this once: there was supposed to be a standard "hand off" on IA64 for
startup. I found out that this "standard" handoff was modified by
several vendors: it was no longer standard.

Let's hope the "hidden
hardware code" to Tiano interface remains standard. Also, if this code
is anything like the EFI code, it won't build under Linux, only builds
under Windows. It won't "just work" for us.

All that said, I think Intel is doing a good thing by open sourcing the Tiano system, and I congratulate them on doing so.

Hey, they can't do that!

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel better not release BIOS under a CPL because it is obvious that SCO owns this. Look out Intel, you are now in the viewfinder of SCO.

OpenFirmware

[leandrod]

One more advantage of RISC systems: OpenFirmware is a real standard, while Intel just wants us to believe it has an 'open architecture standard' and an 'SIG' instead of conforming to an already existing, real open standard.

One more instance of the proprietary lock-in game.

Re:OpenFirmware

[AKAImBatman]

OpenFirmware is a real standard, while Intel just wants us to believe it has an 'open architecture standard' and an 'SIG' instead of conforming to an already existing, real open standard.

Not to mention that it's much cooler. You've got to love how easy it is to tell a Solaris machine to boot from ANYTHING without even an OS on the system! Boot from network? Never have to touch the machine. Boot from USB? A two line command? CDROM? Same! Boot from next years wizzigig? Done.

It's also great for saving a system. Mislink the superblock? Write a Fortran program to fix it! Need a quick calcuation done while writing your program? Write a bit of Fortran to calculate it for you! Face it, OpenFirmware is simply cooler than anything on the Intel platform, present or future.

(BTW, keep an eye out for CmdrTaco. He always shows up with his OpenBoot troll ten hours after the story has been posted. Come on Taco! You've got to get moving! ;-))

Re:OpenFirmware

[Etcetera]

That's exactly what I was going to post :) So.... I'll post some useful links instead! For those that don't know, Open Firmware is a FORTH-based boottime environment that handles all Sun and Mac machines recently produced, and also was used in the PReP/CHRP boards. IBM may still use it in some areas, I'm not sure...

The Firmworks stuff with Linux and OF looks particularly neat...

• Apple's OpenFirmware home page
• An overview of OF
• The Official homepage
• Firmworks, the OF folks (Linux info)
• TinyBoot
• The Open Directory Project category for OpenFirmware

And here's a cool example of things you can do with OF. Two-machine mode boot debugging

Get our minds right first and last.

[Doc Ruby]

Data sharing is literally essential - computers are only marginally useful if their only info exchange is via keyboard/mouse/monitor. DRM is a tech implementation of the human activity of trust. Proprietary DRM schemes, like M$ Passport, or any other vertical integration, are bad trust models. They fetishize others of the same breeding, trusting identical platforms more than different ones. That kind of model is like feeding cattle the remains of their unsold brethren, a monoculture that amplifies platform weaknesses like mad cow, which incubate in a species and even threaten others. The diversity of open trust standards, like PGP webs of trust, or public SSL CAs, combined with open, mutual audits, keep the ecosystem healthy. Before we build a rickety infrastructure based on flawed models and self-defeating principles, we must get to the right way to manage these systems - then automate them. An open source BIOS, which interoperates with the rest of the Internet ecosystem, at least preserves the options to do that, without passing the point of no return on the wrong path.

Re:Get our minds right first and last.

[Doc Ruby]

The DRM we're discussing (as I see it), in this context of open-source BIOS, is "Trusted Computing", a Microsoft initiative which has in recent months been underpinned by new DRM in a new PC BIOS (by Phoenix, I believe). This is a specific DRM that includes lowlevel BIOS functions to enforce compliance with "trust" certification by Microsoft.

Not all DRM is bad, or broken, or required. We have rights, after all, and management of their digital representations is necessary in our increasingly digital environment. But an inaccurate model of our rights, and our transactions within them, will deny those rights. And that will further undermine the model. Leaving us with a world even less inhabitable than now, when these technologies are pursued with exactly the opposite values. So we must be careful how we begin, or it will be a lost cause from the start.

Re:Get our minds right first and last.

[MunchMunch]

"All DRM blocks is the illicit spread of data against the owner's wishes, which is hardly an essential function of any society or system.

I think you have far too much faith in these systems and a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is meant to protect. First, already in combination with laws like the DMCA, DRM is used to deny fair use rights--to state the most obvious example, but by far not the most important. Second, you fail to realize that the purpose of copyright is to encourage progress, not protect 'creations.'

This is because American copyright, as envisioned by the Framers, rejects any moral or property protections and relies instead on a way of viewing creative progress as what I would call a 'collaboration' between generations. Each subsequent generation must have free access to the previous generations' works in order to build upon them. It is thus an essential function of any rational society or system to not impede progress by essentially granting a single generation full control to lock out future generations.

But of course, copyright doesn't allow this anyways, as I spent the last paragraph stating, because it misunderstands that copyright is a protection of some sort of inherent 'right' in the act of creation rather than a protection of progress through balanced public and private rights. In actuality, the more dangerous effect of DRM is that copyright itself becomes obsolete in a DRM-capable world. Companies need only decide what allowances they want to give to consumers through technology, and the balancing effect of the law dissappears.

Re:Get our minds right first and last.

[Muggins the Mad]

> DRM does not prevent data sharing.
> It prevents you from sharing data which you don't have the authority to share. ..or using something you have legally purchased without paying lots of extra money to the local monopolist. ..or forwarding DRMed spam to the senders ISPs. ..or watching that cool DVD your mum bought you while on holiday in the UK... ..or sending a copy of a fraudulent copy of your *own* media to the police...

Ok, hardly essential functions of society,

But still very annoying.

- MugginsM

Re:Get our minds right first and last.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

DRM is an attempt to remove my control of my private property and place it into the hands of someone who doesn't own it. Period.

I oppose DRM because I believe in the right to private property (namely my computer). Nothing to do with copyright violation.

Re:Get our minds right first and last.

[zurab]

Doesn't this depend on actual implementation? You may have different intentions but you are not in charge of designing and implementing the DRM system on 90% of user desktops. Imagine a DRM system where "untrusted" content is branded as unsafe and dangerous and is extremely hard for an average user to play/execute/etc. compared to the "trusted" content which is easy and effortless. When such a system is widely spread, you may even have settings that disable any "untrusted" content outright - that may even be turned on by default without user realizing anything.

No, in such a case, you won't be able to easily share music you create, or a free software program you write to the world unless you get certified by (who? BSA?) whoever for huge amounts of cash to become a "trusted" provider. Or convince your users, if they have an option, to turn off the security setting that Microsoft, anti-virus companies, mainstream press and all others say is wrong to do, will result in worms and viruses, and will no longer be supported by the OEM.

I am not saying this is what will happen. I am saying it depends on what will, and how much monopolies and cartels can get away with.

Re:Get our minds right first and last.

[davester666]

> All DRM blocks is the illicit spread of data against the owner's
> wishes, which is hardly an essential function of any society or
> system.

If it's not an essential function, then why do the Music and Movie industries want it on every computer?

Once upon a time, IBM released the BIOS source...

[monkeymanatwork]

I remember in the late 80's seeing a bound, printed version of the IBM XT BIOS source code (ASM of course). It belonged to a friend and probably dated from the early 80's. IIRC, he sent IBM a check for $50 and they sent it to him.

Not Open Source, but invaluable when we were developing device drivers, TSRs, and other low-level software.

OpenFirmware rules

[n1ywb]

OpenFirmware is the most amazingly awsome BIOS ever. Mostly because it's written in Forth which is one of the most amazingly awsome languages ever. I learned Forth specifically so I could hack on my PowerMac 7500's OpenFirmware. It's too bad Apple's old OF implementations were a bit buggy, but the newer PowerMacs' OF is super.

For those who aren't familiar with Forth: Forth is a very powerful and easy to learn language. It's hardware requirements are very light and it is completely portable. Except for the most fundamental procedures, Forth is written in Forth and is completely modifiable and extensable. Forth programs are written as extensions of Forth itself. Forth is an interpreted language, and can be used from a Forth shell, much like BASIC. However, it is almost as fast as C, and equally powerful. Forth is an ideal language for embedded computer systems.

For those of you that aren't familiar with OpenFirmware: OF is written in Forth and is very powerful because it can be manipulated from the Forth shell. This makes it very straightforward for an intelligent user to modify his BIOS as he sees fit, write BIOS scripts, modify settings, etc. The OF Forth shell gives you all the power of a normal PC BIOS and GRUB and then some. It even has a rudimentary edlin like text editor. Anyway if you own a Mac, look up some info on OF and play around with it a bit, it's pretty freakin cool.

Re:OpenFirmware rules

[Domini]

The coolest thing about the OpenFirmware on my iBook is the fact that you can run a telnet server in it! (Google is your friend!)

Great for when your Firmware stuffs up your display!

Not to mention being able to solve towers of Hanoi problems! ;)

Free Programmers?

[timgoh0]

Maybe its just me, but don't you think that this is just a way of intel trying to get free and fast bugfixes and improvement for their bios?

Re:Free Programmers?

[LordK3nn3th]

Heh, most Linux people (including me) always argue that's one of the benefits of open source, so people can see the bugs and fix it, and then someone complains when Intel might be using it for that reason :)

Let us not be too hasty to chastise intel for being smart...

More Secure?

[niktesla]

It is stored in firmware, so it is more secure from viruses and other types of attack than past BIOSes
[sarcasm] Yeah, there were real virus problems w/ BIOS back when it was non-flashable. Those pesky viruses would pop my BIOS chip out and install a new one before I knew it.[/sarcasm]

Extra or additional drivers and code functions can be stored on the hard drive and accessed there.
Seems like this would increase the vulnerability of the BIOS.

Other than this problem and maybe not being able to control some of the OEM preboot (an odd word when you think of it) "features" (DRM, etc.), this doesn't sound too bad of a plan. Sounds like we're on the way to having the OS run off a FLASH disk or some type of firmware. It'd be ironic if, because of advanced DRM technology, we have to go back to the oldest mod trick - yank out the old chip and solder in the new, as was once done to upgrade BIOS.

so much for preview

[MunchMunch]

"But of course, copyright doesn't allow this anyways, as I spent the last paragraph stating, because it misunderstands that copyright is a protection of some sort of inherent 'right' in the act of creation rather than a protection of progress through balanced public and private rights."

Should be:

"But of course, copyright doesn't allow this anyways, as I spent the last paragraph stating, because that would misunderstand copyright to be a protection of some sort of inherent 'right' in the act of creation rather than a protection of progress through balanced public and private rights."

Sorry!

Nothing to see here, move along

[jmorris42]

Unless you are a motherboard maker you won't be using this source dump. All of the hardware level details will remain hidden away in vendor's source trees so an end user will never be able to link a complete copy.

It might prove useful now and again to conpare documented behavior to actual, but that is about the extent of it.

It's worse than that.

[BiggerIsBetter]

Would you buy a car if you're not allowed to reverse engineer the ECU to reset the Service Due light after changing the oil yourself? Oh, and if you do that anyway, you'll be charged under the DMCA and sent to PITA prison.

What about AMD 64 bit CPU's

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this affect the Amd 64 bit cpu's...I understand that they are a better design than intels future 64 bit machines?? and how does this affect these new bioses?? shouldn't we be demanding an open source bios standard (non-drm)?

Re:Once upon a time, IBM released the BIOS source.

[Tim C]

Not open source in what sense? By the capitalsation, I assume that you're equating "Open Source" to be more than just "access to the source code", but that's adding more to the definition than is present in the words themselves.

You had the source of the program; I'd say it was open source. No, it wasn't GPL licensed (or BSD, or whatever), but it certainly wasn't "closed" either.

Good point but...

[rsilvergun]

it'll get turned off. The tech support costs for automatically rejecting untrusted content will just be too high. Try getting grandma to use public/private key pairs some time. Set her up with the system, and when it doesn't work, tell her to call Microsoft. Do that to 10 million grandma's and watch the stock prices fall.

Re:Good point but...

[zurab]

OK, again, I am not saying that this is what will happen, but I can also imagine how this could happen. Obviously, it cannot be the immediate next step from where we are today. It takes some time and public education and gradual change on both hardware and software side. As an example, a lot of people are already aware and look for an SSL icon/URL before they type in their credit card or social security numbers. With sufficient time, mainstream attention, and a strong push from technology giants like Intel, Microsoft, anti-virus corps, as well as media companies you could get general public to understand and differentiate between "trusted" and "untrusted" content.

With a similar campaigning from same sources depicting "untrusted" content as inherently evil (e.g. pirated music, child pornography, worms and viruses, etc.) you could, with some time and effort, turn ignorant general public against it. Note that most applications/content that you purchase and use will be trusted - MS Office, TurboTax, most commercial games, RIAA/MPAA content, etc. What will not be trusted is viruses, worms, "illegal" music, porn, and free software (or other free legitimate content) the authors of which have no resources to obtain the "trusted" certification.

This type of classification of free software, shareable music and other similar content with very bad things like child pornography, works to a great advantage of technology giants like Microsoft and media cartels like RIAA and MPAA. You can see where this is going and where they'd like to take it. With enough time, resources and scare tactics, they could even lobby for a piece of legislation outlawing "untrusted" content. I can imagine how this could happen, not that it definitely will.

You think worms are bad now...

[Uzik2]

" The Foundation code is designed to be extended with new features and services, such as improved platform manageability, serviceability, and administrative interfaces which are too complex to implement in the old BIOS environment, according to Intel."

Did you notice the part about 'administrative interfaces'? This means your PC will have a remote control interface built right into the BIOS. Now anything that's turned on and connected to the network will be remotely exploitable. Even your Linux box, or your toaster will be worm fodder.

Re:Public/Private Keys

[Rich0]

Only if there is only one private key. If each machine has a serial number and a unique key, and there is a published databases of serial numbers and public keys, then each machine must be cracked once.

DeCSS works only because there are only a few hundred DVD keys that work on all players.

Imagine if CSS were implemented by:

1. DVD player dials DVD consortium over phone.
2. DVD player supplies mainframe with DVD serial number and DVD player serial number.
3. DVD consortium supplies unlock code for that particular DVD (not title - that copy).

If you could hack your player you might be able to get the code and then rip the DVD. But only that DVD. And by dialing up you potentially identified yourself to the consortium so they have the ability to look for trends, and if the DVD video was watermarked they might be able to identify copies that you make. If they narrowed down a likely copier to one of 50 possibly-hacked DVD players they'd just tell the mainframe not to supply codes for any of them, and the 49 legit people would call up and complain, they'd send out a service guy who would check for tampering and then call in and re-enable the player. The guy who didn't call in gets a visit from the BSA...

Sure, this is impractical for DVDs - which is why it wasn't done this way. But if it were done this way there would be no DeCSS.

And if Palladium does take off, this is how it will be done - it is easy to make computers phone home since this technology is being applied to media that will be available online.

As long as each computer has its own private key, you'll never find a practical crack unless the key can be obtained through other channels. But if MS is smart, they'll use smartcard technology - have the computer generate its keypair and output only the public key. If the computer never outputs its private key then not even they will know it. Hence nobody can leak it.

This is how modern smartcards work - not even the owner knows their private key. (That way the owner can't inadvertently lose it, or an attacker can't pretend they are the owner and get the key, since the card has no facility for doing this...)