Slashdot Mirror
Theo de Raadt On Firmware Activism
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has an insightful interview with OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt, discussing their recent activism to try and open up wireless chipsets. In the interview, Theo discusses what has been accomplished so far, the difficulties involved, and why such efforts are important to all free and open source operating systems."
...if only to see a pic of the guy who causes such a ruckus.
Otherwise, the interview is extremely tame. He alludes to the "corporate ways of Linux vendors", but doesn't give vent to any interesting rants.
De Raadt raises one interesting question, though, when he says, "in other cases we have had to resort to activism. An example of this was Qlogic...for a few years we did ship this code without being aware of the issue. But after a few mails to Art at Qlogic, and a threat to remove their code from our upcoming release, they decided to let us include the firmware in our operating systems."
The question is: how is this "activism"? He states that they used Qlogic SCSI firmware inadvertantly, and when asked to stop, threatened to comply with the request. That's "activism"?
Whatever one may think on Theo, I think that he is right here: firmware which cannot be redistributed by distribution are a *pain* for the users.
I hope that Linux&FreeBSD users will join this movement because the more users requests hardware-makers to allow redistribution of firmware, the better!
Also, I think that this movement should not be restricted to wireless HW, I have a speedtouch ADSL modem where there is a similar situation: firmware may not be redistributed.
This is very annoying when you want to install a distribution.. I think that Mandrake managed to get the rights to redistribute this firmware, but they shouldn't be the only one to have this right..
IIRC it's not up to them, because some FCC rules prevent completely OS firmware drivers.
The FCC is basically afraid that someone could modify the code in a way which would lead to a wlan device operating out of spec.
But that's just what I read some time ago...
I don't read replies by ACs.
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that FCC regulations come into play here. These devices are considered wireless radios, and they are approved by the FCC to operate on specific frequencies with specific power levels. Having open sourced firmware could allow modifications to these parameters, such that the devices no longer conform to FCC regulations. This is why several wireless chipsets have open source drivers, but none have open source firmware. Thus, the best we can do at the moment is to pursue "free" firmware, even if it is closed source.
It's up to the users to determine that their modifications are legal. There's nothing stopping companies from putting out the source code of firmware.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
and they are approved by the FCC to operate on specific frequencies with specific power levels.
It's like the days of CB radio. Early PLL sets had an easy to access PLL divide by N counter. Feeding it vales other than what the dial provided permitted illegal operation. Later to prevent lawsuits, the divide by N counter had a pre-programmed interface front end. The channel number was input and the divide by N was done internally. It made for more complex chips, but made out of band operation much easier.
Some WiFi chip manufactures may have the same choices. The user interface software may take the chosen channel selection and set the chip PLL to the correct divide by N ratio. The advantage is if later the FCC opens more frequencies, a simple driver update will put the chip on the new frequencies. With OSS, renagades may ditch the FCC permitted channels and find a "channel" without neithborhood interferance and not seen by the wardrivers for additional security. The chip manufacture could be held liable for enabling the out of band operation. The chip manufacture could do like the CB radio chip manufactures later did and do the divide by N table in the chip instead of in the driver software.. Now you have a chip that can become instantly obsolete if/when the FCC opens more bandwidth. The chip costs more to manufacture to boot. In a comptetive market this is a bad thing.
The truth shall set you free!
I see your point, and you're half-right. The equipment is type-accepted to operate at a certain power level on a certain frequency, but there is nothing in the FCC regs stating that the firmware has to be closed source. After all, there is really nothing (except the fear of a hefty fine and/or jail time) preventing a person from buying a type-accepted radio at Wal-Mart and modifying it to put out more power, or to transmit on a different frequency band. These radios are not "black boxes", so neither should be the firmware.
My own thoughts on as to why they are closed source leans more towards trade secrets.
No matter where you go... there you are.