Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:39 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: That said, it is still extremely late for F-14 consideration. Those interested in seeing this driver in some later F-14 kernel update or in F-15 or beyond are strongly encouraged to take-up this driver's cause in getting it migrated from drivers/staging to drivers/net/wireless in the upstream kernel. Are these devices really *so* different from what's gone before that they deserve their own completely separate driver? Or should support for the new hardware be merged into the existing ssb/b43 framework? It wouldn't be the first time that a vendor has submitted a new driver which really shouldn't have been reinventing the wheel. -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:20 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the regulations. That assumption is demonstrably false. In the lawyers' defense, lots of things happen in courtrooms which apear crack-inspired to those of us who aren't part of the legal process (and, frequently, also to those who are). I could certainly see a creative lawyer trying to argue that a driver under an open source license implicitly encourages modification of the relevant code, while a driver under a closed source license implicitly discourages it or even explicitly prohibits it (I haven't checked, but the closed source drivers may be shipped with a license which claims to prohibit end-user modification). But the specific type of modifications we're talking about are *already* prohibited, by the law of the land. It really doesn't make an iota of difference whether the licence of the software adds extra provisions. The argument you're positing is an argument which could be used against *all* Open Source software -- take fairly much *any* package on a network-connected system and you *could* modify it to do *something* illegal. And then you could argue that its licence implicitly encouraged you to do so... does that mean the original author is responsible? -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:38 +0200, drago01 wrote: But where do you draw the line? A crack-inspired judge might argue that the fact that regulation is done in software is a problem regardless of the drivers license / nature. There's actually some merit in that position. But still there's very little excuse for distinguishing between closed-source and open-source software. Poking out a conditional jump and turning it into a NOP, or changing an immediate value used for a comparison to enforce regulatory restrictions is *easy* in a binary driver. As I said, it's actually *easier* for end-users to do that than it is for them to patch and rebuild a driver from source. Perhaps we should get the folks working on reverse-engineering the binary b43 drivers to release such hacks, to reinforce that point. Like the one I had for the MGA hallib a few years ago, where you dd a zero byte to a certain location and it would turn off Macrovision on all the outputs... -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:13:25AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Their *original* offering of that new firmware had a stupid licence -- you could only distribute it if you promised to indemnify and defend Broadcom from all related third-party lawsuits. They fixed that though, and I merged it. Nevertheless, everyone I know that has reviewed the newly released driver code is being treated for eye cancer. I wouldn't expect to see it in F-14. My glib statement above seems to have caused a little heartburn for our friends at Broadcom. To be fair, I do not believe that the Broadcom-provided driver is substantially any worse than any of the many other vendor-provided drivers we have seen over the years. In fact, it seems to have drawn a lot of immediate interest and has already seen a number of community-provided patches posted. That said, it is still extremely late for F-14 consideration. Those interested in seeing this driver in some later F-14 kernel update or in F-15 or beyond are strongly encouraged to take-up this driver's cause in getting it migrated from drivers/staging to drivers/net/wireless in the upstream kernel. Thanks, John -- John W. LinvilleThe truth will set you free, but first it will linvi...@redhat.com make you miserable. -- James A. Garfield -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 12:41 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:20 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the regulations. That assumption is demonstrably false. In the lawyers' defense, lots of things happen in courtrooms which apear crack-inspired to those of us who aren't part of the legal process (and, frequently, also to those who are). I could certainly see a creative lawyer trying to argue that a driver under an open source license implicitly encourages modification of the relevant code, while a driver under a closed source license implicitly discourages it or even explicitly prohibits it (I haven't checked, but the closed source drivers may be shipped with a license which claims to prohibit end-user modification). But the specific type of modifications we're talking about are *already* prohibited, by the law of the land. It really doesn't make an iota of difference whether the licence of the software adds extra provisions. Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on telephone communications frequencies either. And the CFR advice and FCC implementation is to require that designers of radio equipment make it intentionally difficult to modify that equipment to listen in on such frequencies. So, it's not just the law of the land, but there can be implementation decisions that require modification to be difficult. On some level, it is harder to modify closed source software because you can make the argument that the lack of source has various implications. True, you can actually make the change - and you can also hack that radio scanner you own - but they made it more difficult to do so. The argument you're positing is an argument which could be used against *all* Open Source software -- take fairly much *any* package on a network-connected system and you *could* modify it to do *something* illegal. And then you could argue that its licence implicitly encouraged you to do so... does that mean the original author is responsible? Again, it's not just the law - it's not black and white - but the way it's then codified into regulations and the way those regulations are interpreted by the various bodies that help to define them. And of course we can say that sucks, but that doesn't really do anything. Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote: ... snip ... Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on telephone communications frequencies either. And the CFR advice and FCC implementation is to require that designers of radio equipment make it intentionally difficult to modify that equipment to listen in on such frequencies. FYI. The law in Canada is/was a little different. Your were allowed to listen, but you were not allowed to repeat anything you heard. Thats why you can/could buy un-blocked scanners here. ... at least thats the way it _used_ to be. The issue with WiFi isn't so much the ability to 'listen' to traffic, its the fact that not all 'defined' frequencies that the hardware is capable of using, ARE legally usable in all countries. Now how does a device/laptop 'know' what country its current operating in is another story. Its not as if it has a built-n GPS! :-) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote: Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on telephone communications frequencies either. And the CFR advice and FCC implementation is to require that designers of radio equipment make it intentionally difficult to modify that equipment to listen in on such frequencies. The law in Canada is/was a little different. That's nice, but most of these manufacturers seem to be US based. Its not that simple ... they have to comply with the regulatory rules of the countries they ship there products in. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:53 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote: Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on telephone communications frequencies either. And the CFR advice and FCC implementation is to require that designers of radio equipment make it intentionally difficult to modify that equipment to listen in on such frequencies. The law in Canada is/was a little different. That's nice, but most of these manufacturers seem to be US based. Its not that simple ... they have to comply with the regulatory rules of the countries they ship there products in. It just goes to show that the process is worthless, because it can be circumvented in all sorts of manners. Most simply by taking your laptop on your next trip outside of _your_ 'regulated' (where the hardware was shipped to) country. Whats going to stop your hardware from broadcasting illegally? A judge, a lawyer, a license agreement? So in the end, it really doesn't matter where the source code, or the blob is hackable/crackable. But lets not cloud the issue with facts. :-( The fact is that we are currently saddled with this situation till some new wireless standard can operate in a band, anywhere in the world, wit the same transmission characteristics. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 16:53 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote: On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote: Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on telephone communications frequencies either. And the CFR advice and FCC implementation is to require that designers of radio equipment make it intentionally difficult to modify that equipment to listen in on such frequencies. The law in Canada is/was a little different. That's nice, but most of these manufacturers seem to be US based. Its not that simple ... they have to comply with the regulatory rules of the countries they ship there products in. Yes. But (and I love Canada) the US market is huge, corporations are registered and based here, etc. So all I was saying is that the opinion of the FCC would naturally influence their behavior moreso that that of regulatory bodies in other jurisdictions. If the FCC happened to say they interpreted something one way, it would carry a lot of weight. Anyway. This is off topic now. Jon. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
Hi, On 09/14/2010 01:31 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Hmm, now that they are trying to be opensource friendly, can't we get them to license the old firmware under the same license as the new one? It would be great to be able to ship the old firmware and haver older broadcom cards work out of the box. David do you have a contact inside Broadcom to talk to about this, and could you ask? Regards, Hans -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
Hans de Goede wrote on 15.09.2010 08:31: On 09/14/2010 01:31 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Hmm, now that they are trying to be opensource friendly, can't we get them to license the old firmware under the same license as the new one? It would be great to be able to ship the old firmware and haver older broadcom cards work out of the box. David do you have a contact inside Broadcom to talk to about this, and could you ask? Just FYI, a question like that was already raised in public a few days ago, but remains unanswered as of now afaics: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.driver-project.devel/8460/focus=55447 CU knurd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 08:31 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: Hi, On 09/14/2010 01:31 PM, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Hmm, now that they are trying to be opensource friendly, can't we get them to license the old firmware under the same license as the new one? It would be great to be able to ship the old firmware and haver older broadcom cards work out of the box. David do you have a contact inside Broadcom to talk to about this, and could you ask? I've asked, but they're scared of it. They seem to think that they could be prosecuted even for *enabling* people to use the open source b43 driver, because you have the possibility of hacking that driver not to conform to the regulatory requirements. Shipping the binary-only firmware with a licence which permits us to distribute it as part of a Linux distribution could be seen as 'enabling' the use of the b43 driver, so they're reluctant to do so. Even if their licence doesn't mention Linux at all, but just allows you to distribute it for use with their hardware in general. The whole thing seems completely nonsensical to me -- it's well known that people reverse-engineer and hack up binary drivers too, so there's nothing stopping those users from breaking the regulations either. There are hacks out there which let you boost the TX power with the binary drivers, for example. If the Broadcom lawyers really do suffer from such paranoid delusions, they should never have shipped hardware which requires *any* software assistance to conform to the law. In the meantime, people are quite happily shipping the 'offending' b43 driver in all parts of the world without hearing *anything* from the authorities. And yet the Broadcom lawyers still seem to cling to their fantasy that a hackable Open Source driver somehow puts them at more risk than a just-as-hackable closed-source driver. Fixing bugs and making other improvements in the closed source driver is much harder than it is in the open driver, of course -- but if all you want to do is remove restrictions on available channels and tweak things like TX power, that's actually fairly easy with the binary drivers. That's why I say 'just as hackable'. It's also much *easier* to distribute such hacks for the binary drivers; it's often just a case of 'zero the byte at 0x5d3 with a hex editor', which is easier for most users than actually patching source code and rebuilding a driver properly. The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the regulations. That assumption is demonstrably false. -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:07:50 +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part? Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now. I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified. From supporting Sugar related deployments using the Fedora Sugar on a Stick with HP laptops I've not exactly seen that but I'm not sure if its pertaining to particular models. I know Dell in the past has offered their re branded Broadcom wifi with an option of Intel wifi for a £5 premium. No idea if HP does similar. Dell no longer offer a WiFi card choice, at least in Europe and even in the US for their netbook lines. Sony does ship Atheros WiFi cards by default, though, even on their budget lines (I have the EB 15 and the W netbook). The memory card on the netbook does not work, but that's a minor issue. -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778 Jabber: hir...@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hir...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the regulations. That assumption is demonstrably false. In the lawyers' defense, lots of things happen in courtrooms which apear crack-inspired to those of us who aren't part of the legal process (and, frequently, also to those who are). I could certainly see a creative lawyer trying to argue that a driver under an open source license implicitly encourages modification of the relevant code, while a driver under a closed source license implicitly discourages it or even explicitly prohibits it (I haven't checked, but the closed source drivers may be shipped with a license which claims to prohibit end-user modification). And I could see a crack-inspired judge agreeing. This is the kind of crap lawyers have to think of. (I agree that it would have been an awful lot simpler to just limit the hardware, but then they'd have to make variants of the hardware for all different markets, since the range of allowed/required frequencies differs around the world). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the regulations. That assumption is demonstrably false. In the lawyers' defense, lots of things happen in courtrooms which apear crack-inspired to those of us who aren't part of the legal process (and, frequently, also to those who are). I could certainly see a creative lawyer trying to argue that a driver under an open source license implicitly encourages modification of the relevant code, while a driver under a closed source license implicitly discourages it or even explicitly prohibits it (I haven't checked, but the closed source drivers may be shipped with a license which claims to prohibit end-user modification). And I could see a crack-inspired judge agreeing. This is the kind of crap lawyers have to think of. (I agree that it would have been an awful lot simpler to just limit the hardware, but then they'd have to make variants of the hardware for all different markets, since the range of allowed/required frequencies differs around the world). But where do you draw the line? A crack-inspired judge might argue that the fact that regulation is done in software is a problem regardless of the drivers license / nature. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:39:48PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote: On 09/14/2010 10:13 AM, John W. Linville wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Their *original* offering of that new firmware had a stupid licence -- you could only distribute it if you promised to indemnify and defend Broadcom from all related third-party lawsuits. They fixed that though, and I merged it. Nevertheless, everyone I know that has reviewed the newly released driver code is being treated for eye cancer. I wouldn't expect to see it in F-14. John Can we use the firmware that they have for the existing broadcom wireless driver? AIUI, they main technical reason that they were finally willing to open-up was that they were able to add some regulatory enforcement code in their firmware. The added firmware functionality required more firmware resources, and only the newer devices explicictly supported by Broadcom's newly-released driver have enough firmware resources to run it. That said, I don't know if some future version of b43 might be able to use this new firmware to support this new hardware or not. But the current version of b43 will not support it anyway. So I guess the above is a long way of saying 'no, sorry'... :-( John -- John W. LinvilleThe truth will set you free, but first it will linvi...@redhat.com make you miserable. -- James A. Garfield -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:09:58 -0400, John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com wrote: AIUI, they main technical reason that they were finally willing to open-up was that they were able to add some regulatory enforcement code in their firmware. The added firmware functionality required more firmware resources, and only the newer devices explicictly supported by Broadcom's newly-released driver have enough firmware resources to run it. How does the firmware know where you are? Do you need different firmware for different markets? I hope the guys that reverse engineered the firmware that can be used as an alternative with the b43 driver keep working on it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 08:49:46AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:09:58 -0400, John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com wrote: AIUI, they main technical reason that they were finally willing to open-up was that they were able to add some regulatory enforcement code in their firmware. The added firmware functionality required more firmware resources, and only the newer devices explicictly supported by Broadcom's newly-released driver have enough firmware resources to run it. How does the firmware know where you are? Do you need different firmware for different markets? Beats me...more likely, there is some sort of SKU-equivalent info available to the firmware and a table of predefined regulatory rules mapped to those SKUs. This, of course, does nothing to prevent situations where one is using values that are OK in your country of origin but not in your current host country. But I suppose that is more of an import/export problem...? Whatever. I hope the guys that reverse engineered the firmware that can be used as an alternative with the b43 driver keep working on it. Me too. If/when I find a way to alter time or speed-up the harvest (or teleport me off this rock) I think I would enjoy working on that! In the meantime, I hope someone else with applicable skills and interests takes that opportunity. John -- John W. LinvilleThe truth will set you free, but first it will linvi...@redhat.com make you miserable. -- James A. Garfield -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, pbrobin...@gmail.com pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not seen any comment as to the state of them other than they already support mac80211. These are quite a common device and I think it would be nice to see them available in F-14. That's up to John to decide, so I added him to CC. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
pbrobin...@gmail.com pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not seen any comment as to the state of them other than they already support mac80211. These are quite a common device and I think it would be nice to see them available in F-14. IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. -- Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: pbrobin...@gmail.com pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not seen any comment as to the state of them other than they already support mac80211. These are quite a common device and I think it would be nice to see them available in F-14. IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. You are ;) The firmware required is part of linux-firmware (i.e fine to ship). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Their *original* offering of that new firmware had a stupid licence -- you could only distribute it if you promised to indemnify and defend Broadcom from all related third-party lawsuits. They fixed that though, and I merged it. -- dwmw2 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Their *original* offering of that new firmware had a stupid licence -- you could only distribute it if you promised to indemnify and defend Broadcom from all related third-party lawsuits. They fixed that though, and I merged it. Nevertheless, everyone I know that has reviewed the newly released driver code is being treated for eye cancer. I wouldn't expect to see it in F-14. John -- John W. LinvilleThe truth will set you free, but first it will linvi...@redhat.com make you miserable. -- James A. Garfield -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM, John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Their *original* offering of that new firmware had a stupid licence -- you could only distribute it if you promised to indemnify and defend Broadcom from all related third-party lawsuits. They fixed that though, and I merged it. Nevertheless, everyone I know that has reviewed the newly released driver code is being treated for eye cancer. I wouldn't expect to see it in F-14. Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the norm for vendor code dumps. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On 09/14/2010 08:33 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the norm for vendor code dumps. It is nevertheless a massive step forward. I heard OEM systems were favouring other, even slightly more expensive wireless cards because of the poor Linux support from Broadcom in this particular area and their change removes one of the major barriers in the near future. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/14/2010 08:33 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the norm for vendor code dumps. It is nevertheless a massive step forward. I heard OEM systems were favouring other, even slightly more expensive wireless cards because of the poor Linux support from Broadcom in this particular area and their change removes one of the major barriers in the near future. Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part? -- Sent from my Android phone. Please excuse my brevity. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part? Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now. -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part? Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now. I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part? Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now. I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified. From supporting Sugar related deployments using the Fedora Sugar on a Stick with HP laptops I've not exactly seen that but I'm not sure if its pertaining to particular models. I know Dell in the past has offered their re branded Broadcom wifi with an option of Intel wifi for a £5 premium. No idea if HP does similar. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 09/14/2010 08:33 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the norm for vendor code dumps. It is nevertheless a massive step forward. I heard OEM systems were favouring other, even slightly more expensive wireless cards because of the poor Linux support from Broadcom in this particular area and their change removes one of the major barriers in the near future. I'm not denying the massive step forward, its certainly a valued contribution. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 01:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part? Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now. I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified. Ones who pre-load Linux could presumably calculate that shipping a better supported chip may cost them slightly more initially but save them maintenance headaches and hence eventually work out cheaper, so that would be Dell and HP. I think some of their pre-loaded systems do come with Intel chipsets rather than Broadcom, which are indeed slightly more expensive to procure. I haven't directly heard the rumours Rahul had, though. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified. Ones who pre-load Linux could presumably calculate that shipping a better supported chip may cost them slightly more initially but save them maintenance headaches and hence eventually work out cheaper, so that would be Dell and HP. I think some of their pre-loaded systems do come with Intel chipsets rather than Broadcom, which are indeed slightly more expensive to procure. I haven't directly heard the rumours Rahul had, though. Some HP laptops pre-loaded with FreeDOS, and comes with a Broadcom chip (BCM4312 rev 01), and the website/manual said: it's certified for SuSE Enterprise Linux and RedFlag Linux (Asian distro based on RHEL) however the wifi is supported by propriety driver from Broadcom (broadcom-wl). So when HP (and others) say that a laptop (or other hardware) is certified for Linux this include hardware with propriety drivers. Another exemple is EmperorLinux they sells some Linux-certified laptops with nVidia hardware. Regards. -- Athmane Madjoudj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
On 09/14/2010 10:13 AM, John W. Linville wrote: On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though. That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices, but the firmware to go with their new driver is now in linux-firmware.git. Their *original* offering of that new firmware had a stupid licence -- you could only distribute it if you promised to indemnify and defend Broadcom from all related third-party lawsuits. They fixed that though, and I merged it. Nevertheless, everyone I know that has reviewed the newly released driver code is being treated for eye cancer. I wouldn't expect to see it in F-14. John Can we use the firmware that they have for the existing broadcom wireless driver? Ric -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Broadcom wifi drivers in F-14?
Ric Wheeler (rwhee...@redhat.com) said: Can we use the firmware that they have for the existing broadcom wireless driver? 'No' is what I've been told. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
