Subject: Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
To: Jonathan Gray <email@example.com>
From: Maxim Bourmistrov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/30/2006 12:43:00
Why don't ignore them and don't buy their products?
I have already a list of vendors I'm not buying products from anymore, like Adaptec.
I'm also encouraging people to buy products from OpenSource-friendly vendors, like RaLink.
On Saturday 30 September 2006 12:28, Jonathan Gray wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:03:57AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > Regarding Intel wireless chips and distribution rights...
> > > From: "Damien Bergamini" <email@example.com>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > Intel's policy with respect to open-source software which
> > > has been presented at OSDL (I wasn't there unfortunately) is
> > > clear and can be summarized as follow:
> > >
> > > - make us look like we're open-source friendly by opening
> > > a project on sourceforge.
> > > - give the open-source community the bare minimum so that
> > > they can serve as our beta-testers.
> > >
> > > Even, they're far less opened that what they pretend to be
> > > in their slides:
> > >
> > > "If you need to keep IP closed source (for example some
> > > whiz-bang algorithm), document the hardware sufficiently
> > > that the community can provide their own."
> > >
> > > So Intel please tell me where I can find the documentation
> > > of your Intel PRO/Wireless products so that I can improve
> > > the drivers myself?
> > >
> > > Damien
> > >
> > >  "Balancing Open Source and Corporate Objectives"
> > > James Ketrenos, Intel SGG Core Software Division,
> > > ipw2100/2200/3945 project manager, July 25, 2006
> > > http://developer.osdl.org/dev/opendrivers/summit2006/james_ketrenos.pdf
> > > http://developer.osdl.org/dev/opendrivers/summit2006/james_ketrenos.mp3
> > > And yes, it was in the "Open Drivers" summit!
> > >
> > >
> > > | CVSROOT: /cvs
> > > | Module name: src
> > > | Changes by: firstname.lastname@example.org 2006/09/29 21:02:45
> > > |
> > > | Modified files:
> > > | share/man/man4 : wpi.4 iwi.4 ipw.4
> > > |
> > > | Log message:
> > > | We have again tried to talk to Intel about being able
> > > | to redistribute firmware and they are being totally
> > > | unhelpful.
> > > |
> > > | If you'd like to tell Intel how screwed up this
> > > | situation is, you should mail email@example.com
> > In the past, our users have shown that they can help us convince
> > vendors to do the right thing. They have shown vendors the path
> > towards freeing up many pieces of documentation or granting firmware
> > distribution rights. This has helped with many vendors, most of them
> > quite large.
> > Before we ask a vendor, we have already lost (ie. the device does not
> > work). When a vendor says no, we have lost nothing further -- there
> > is no way we can lose further than having the device not work. We can
> > only win, and then the device works. So there is no point in giving
> > up until we win back the rights to write software for the hardware
> > that we have purchased.
> > These vendors often want a quiet private discussion, because in a
> > quiet private discussion they can continue to dismiss the requests and
> > in the end do absolutely nothing. They do not want a noisy public
> > discussion, because then they look bad. But they DESERVE TO LOOK BAD,
> > because they are being bad to those who bought their hardware!
> > In this particular case, we would like more documentation for the
> > Intel wireless chips. Damien has already written drivers that make
> > the devices work quite well... but there are still bugs, since all of
> > this is based on reverse engineering efforts. The drivers could be
> > better. Intel stands in the way of your devices working as well as
> > they should.
> > Wireless devices from most other vendors now work significantly better
> > in the *BSD projects than the Intel drivers. That is because almost
> > all the other vendors have been far more open than Intel, and because
> > Damien (and friends) have worked very hard to do their best. Quite
> > frankly, Intel has been a royal pain in the ass. Not to us, but to
> > people who bought their devices.
> > We would also like Intel to GRANT us distribution rights for the
> > binary firmwares of their 3 wireless chipsets. Quite frankly we don't
> > care what their reasons are, because their reasons must be lies
> > according to the slides Intel presented at a conference.
> > Intel also must grant these rights freely (we will not sign away our
> > users rights, and we will not sign away our own rights -- that is what
> > some of the Linux vendors do when they ship Intel firmwares). Intel
> > must do this firmware grant in the same way that Adaptec, Atmel,
> > Broadcom, Cirrus Logic, Cyclades, QLogic, Ralink, and LSI and lots of
> > other companies have granted distribution firmware to be used by
> > others. We do not believe that Intel is not special enough that they
> > can take people's money and their rights.
> > (By the way, Intel already provides some other firmwares for other
> > chips, with the correct distribution terms... those firmwares being
> > CRITICAL BUG FIXES for very broken 100mbit ethernet chips that they
> > shipped in the millions. That is why we know that Intel's legal
> > department already knows how to release firmware images with a BSD
> > license, thus permitting distribution).
> > Until Intel releases these things, even their conference presentations
> > make them total liars -- and that specifically means James Ketrenos.
> > He has no right to tell such lies at an Open Source conference.
> > People who release full code are open source -- Intel is not, and
> > since James does not release *all the pieces that people need* into
> > the Open Source Community, James is not Open Source, and therefore
> > James is a big fat liar. James and Intel only release the partial
> > fragments that they feel will make them look "Open".
> > (To quote a friend,
> > Some asshole said he was "open",
> > but he was only open for business.
> > By withholding, Intel is being an Open Source fraud.
> > Majid Awad at Intel has stated to developers that he is the current
> > person who is responsible for this particular area. So go ahead, let
> > him know how you feel about this.
> > Again, his email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
> > So let's win back the rights to run the hardware we purchased.
> > Please feel free to let other open source communities know about this
> > matter. Thank you.
> We have been trying to make this happen for YEARS, and the situation
> is rapidly getting worse not better.
> These issues affects ALL open operating systems, tell Intel you want
> them to change their policies, tell them you aren't happy. It's your
> money why should they get to screw you around by not supporting their