Slashdot Mirror
Update On OpenBSD Firmware Activism
putko writes "Here's an update on the OpenBSD firmware activism. Basically, Intel says no. Plenty of contact info, in case you want to write someone an email or a phone call.
As Theo writes, 'Without
these firmware files included in OpenBSD, users must go do some
click-through license at some web site to get at the files. Without
those files, these devices are just bits of metal, plastic, and sand.'" While I applaud the notion behind Freer distribution (as in beer) it's also highly probable that Intel doesn't have much ground make them freer - we've seen this before on machines like the HP nw8000; basically, the wireless stuff is owned by someone else, licensed by Intel. That's not to say that the fight isn't worth fighting for freer distribution - it is. But if you want to make your voice heard, remember to be effective advocate.
Perhaps it's just me, but I think it would have been useful and rather painless to include the word "Centrino" somewhere in that article so that people who aren't intimately familiar with OpenBSD would know what we were talking about without having to guess (or read 2/3s of the thing before they actually see the word "wireless").
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
Is that supposed to be a sentence, or has Hemos been playing around with the Monkey / Shakespeare Simulator again?
Intel to speak to them, they are going to need a medium.
The simple and most obvious solution to my mind is.
a: Email in a polite manner an Intel representative, explaining that in light of their refusal to cooperate with a freer use of hardware you bought or would have bought that you will vote with your feet and use a competitor, who will comply with non-restrictive use.
b: Then actually vote with your feet.
I can't see, _how_ exactly Intel can't redistribute it's own firmware, under any license it likes. We could speculate as to some _evil_ empire requiring Intel to rescrictive agreements, but, I think that, the reality is, that a company the size of Intel, probably to a large extent has home grown products virtually everywhere.
Base case Intel won't cooperate and won't give reasons for non cooperation, there is _no_ reason to ascribe any frustrated alutristic intentions on their part, by some external evil.
Is there a link somewhere, for a list of cards which will work, with Free as in speech Operating systems?
Part of me wants to back Theo arguing for distributable firmware - but another part of me feels that there is still a lot that can be achieved without requiring any re-licensing.
I'm currently stuck trying to get my Alcatel/Thompson "Speedtouch 330" (Revision 4) ADSL modem to work under FreeBSD 5.3. Downloading the 'firmware' was a pain but much of that could have been resolved with some good documentation and an MD5 to verify the correct version. Even now I have the device recognised following the handbook doesn't get me connected... and offers precious little information about how to make appropriate configuration.
I suppose the response might be that that OpenBSD would do this fine - though I chose FreeBSD as a result about concerns about OpenBSD support for the Atheros chipset in my Dlink DWL G520 PCI wireless net card (which is straightforward to configure in FreeBSD.) Aaaagh!
Ask nicely all you want and you're likely to be ignored. But let the buying public become a pain in the ass and they're likely to do something about it.
While it's pretty obvious that the companies that use these chipsets are essentially helpless and cannot release the firmware code for public distribution, if people are enough of a pain in the ass, it will prevent them from using such hardware/firmware in the future. Don't quit complaining or they will read it as acceptance.
They are NOT asking to open source the driver(s), but to allow free redistribution of the binary firmware.
"It took Intel about two weeks to come back and say that they cannot give us freer redistribution rights." [4th paragraph, first line.]
9 994542424009&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=10
Some of our most vocal proponents, such as ESR, RMS, and Linus, have somewhat taken on this responsibility, but even they are flamed and criticized.
Holding our most vocal proponents to be above criticism is an example of exactly the sort of mindless zealotry that epitomizes bad advocacy.
They should not, of course, be flamed, but critcised with professional politness where they are deserving of it, and everyone is deserving of it at one time or another.
When Neils Bohr went to Los Alamos during the Manhatten Project he spent a lot of time talking to Feynman, who, at the time, was a pretty minor figure who hadn't even finished his doctorate work yet.
Why? Because he was the only one there unafraid to forthrightly tell the Great One his ideas were stupid when they were.
Good leaders like that sort of thing. It makes their own advocay stronger. Only bad leaders hold themselves as above admission of error.
Yeah, I see the idea that Joe was driving at here, but he needs to go back rework that bit, as it came out very, very wrong, suggesting that we should all show a mindless unity when it comes to our public front
There's a word for that: zealotry.
And it's all about free as in speech, isn't it?
Besides, from what I've seen, Linus, ESR and RMS are well able to stand up for themselves, and rather entertaining while they do it, even if you disagree with them on some point or other.
KFG
Vendors that are OEMing components have a choice of components, just as consumers have a choice of vendor. If there is sufficient backlash against a component choice that limits consumers' ability to use the products they purchase, vendors will begin to select more "open" component manufacturers.
No matter what your choice of OS, this is a good thing. It prevents the premature obsolescence caused by vendors dropping support after a few months - I've seen this happen in Windows XP and MacOS. While this situation may prevent a Linux user from purchasing and using a given product, it also makes other OS users subject to abandonment.
Consumer protection groups are apparently powerless to protect consumers from this type of fraud, at least for now. The best thing we as technically informed individuals can do it make sure that the word gets out on products in this category.
If the products are not attractive to consumers because of their limited support life or OS choice restrictions, then vendors will put pressure on the supply channel to change the status quo.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
So, that sounds more reasonable. What could keep Intel from doing this?
- Third party patent licenses restricting free distribution
- Third party software licenses restricting free distribution on the derived binary code
- Fear of hardware cloners "dropping in" the firmware and selling a knockoff product
- etc...
In short, there are a myriad of reasons why Intel would say no. If this is a problem for you, reverse the hardware and produce a free firmware, or make noise && vote with your feet.LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
The best approach is to keep your wallet in your pocket or buy from a competitor, and then contact a human at the company that you didn't buy from and give them a detailed explanation why you chose their competitor instead. This way you actually get attention, because from their perspective the sale came straight out of their pocket into a competitor's. If they won't listen to that sort of reasoning, they're going to sink anyway.
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Chances are high that there's a criss-crossing web of cross-licensed patents which prevents second-order licensing (i.e. making the "thing" - in this case firmware) freely available to people who want to make it freely available - recursively.
As an aside, I imagine that's going to be a strategy that Microsoft is going to use in the future to fight Linux.
You know, we've all heard it: Sorry, your ATI card cannot run X accelerated on your computer, and the svideo port is just a lump of metal because we licenced that technology from someone else and cannot redistribute it, even though our drivers won't work in your computer. Sorry, your nvidia card won't work in the latest kernel and would be useless to any kernel developer, because we licenced that technology from someone else and cannot redistribute it...
I'm sure I could go on, but you get the point. Imagine going out for dinner and it makes you sick because it has *shrug* powdered peanuts in it. Next time, you ask for no peanuts, only to be told "Sorry, we licenced this recipe from somebody else and do not have permission to vary it, even though the current version is useless to you". There is no way you would put up with that, at the least you would walk out.
Yet for some reason in IT we accept that excuse as if nvidia hadn't just negotiated the contract that does not permit them to redistribute only weeks beforehand. Nvidia, ATI and intel are only getting away with this excuse because we tolerate it. If we instead refuse to buy the products then you can bet the next time they negotiate licencing, all the problems disappear.
You might think we are a too small group to make a difference in this regard, but you'd be wrong. You would be right that few people use linux, and even fewer user OpenBSD, but what propotion of those people have strong influence over large IT budgets? Viewed in terms of dollars controlled instead of products sold and suddenly you're talking much bigger bikkies.