Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On 06/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a working system. That was explained below. You might not like the reasons, or agree with them, but your claim that the FreeBSD manpages do not say anything about the need for firmware is obviously mistaken. How is the claim obviously mistaken if the man-page DO NOT say what's the reason that the firmware must be downloaded from a web-site? There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. Yes, regulatory bodies, of cause, table specific requirements that must be satisfied by systems that utilise RF, i.e. the manufacturer must make reasonable attempt to prevent users from using non-permitted frequencies. Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with the FCC, however. That's right. Intel permits you to redistribute their firmware under the terms of their license. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware under a non-OSS-friendly licence? The BSD license and all other OSS-friendly licenses permit the user to modify the software and redistribute that modified version as a derivative work. A modified version of the firmware has not received FCC certification-- see Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, section 15 in general, and specificly: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/47cfr15_05.html Sec. 15.21 Information to user. The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment. Right, this means a notice on the device or supporting documentation. It does not require a legal term in the firmware's licence. Sec. 15.202 Certified operating frequency range. Client devices that operate in a master/client network may be certified if they have the capability of operating outside permissible part 15 frequency bands, provided they operate on only permissible part 15 frequencies under the control of the master device with which they communicate. Master devices marketed within the United States must be limited to operation on permissible part 15 frequencies. Client devices that can also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a master device. Also see: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unauthorizedradio.html Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio without a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Thus, generally, in order to use or operate a radio station, the Communications Act requires that you first obtain a license by the FCC. However, there are certain limited exceptions. For example, the FCC has provided blanket authorization to operators of Citizens Band (CB) radios, radio control stations, domestic ship and aircraft radios and certain other types of devices. This blanket authorization means that operators of these radio facilities are not required to have individual station licenses. Operators are required to operate their
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a working system. That was explained below. You might not like the reasons, or agree with them, but your claim that the FreeBSD manpages do not say anything about the need for firmware is obviously mistaken. There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. Yes, regulatory bodies, of cause, table specific requirements that must be satisfied by systems that utilise RF, i.e. the manufacturer must make reasonable attempt to prevent users from using non-permitted frequencies. Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with the FCC, however. That's right. Intel permits you to redistribute their firmware under the terms of their license. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware under a non-OSS-friendly licence? The BSD license and all other OSS-friendly licenses permit the user to modify the software and redistribute that modified version as a derivative work. A modified version of the firmware has not received FCC certification-- see Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter I, section 15 in general, and specificly: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/47cfr15_05.html Sec. 15.21 Information to user. The users manual or instruction manual for an intentional or unintentional radiator shall caution the user that changes or modifications not expressly approved by the party responsible for compliance could void the user's authority to operate the equipment. Sec. 15.202 Certified operating frequency range. Client devices that operate in a master/client network may be certified if they have the capability of operating outside permissible part 15 frequency bands, provided they operate on only permissible part 15 frequencies under the control of the master device with which they communicate. Master devices marketed within the United States must be limited to operation on permissible part 15 frequencies. Client devices that can also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a master device. Also see: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/unauthorizedradio.html Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934 prohibits the “use or operation of any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio” without a license issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Thus, generally, in order to use or operate a radio station, the Communications Act requires that you first obtain a license by the FCC. However, there are certain limited exceptions. For example, the FCC has provided blanket authorization to operators of Citizens Band (CB) radios, radio control stations, domestic ship and aircraft radios and certain other types of devices. This blanket authorization means that operators of these radio facilities are not required to have individual station licenses. Operators are required to operate their stations in a manner consistent with the FCC’s operational and technical rules for those services. Failure to do so could be considered an unauthorized operation. Again, is there some part of this that is unclear or which you fail to understand? Yes, precicely, I don't understand why you think FCC
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: My acquaintance with Unix started with FreeBSD, which I used for quite a while before discovering OpenBSD. I now mostly use OpenBSD, and I was wondering of how many FreeBSD users are aware about the licensing restrictions of Intel Pro Wireless family of wireless adapters? I would imagine that all FreeBSD users who are using the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors are familiar with the license, given that they have to agree to the license in order to get the adaptor working. Even someone like me who doesn't have one is aware of the license. Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? If you are curious as to why things are the way they are, I suggest that you check the problems that are described in the misc@openbsd.org mailing list, and contact Intel people and say what you think about their user-unfriendly policy in regards to Intel Pro Wireless firmwares, which are REQUIRED to be loaded from the OS before the device functions, i.e. the OS developers must be allowed to freely distribute the firmware in order for the devices to work out-of-the-box. There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. Again, is there some part of this that is unclear or which you fail to understand? For some recent information about Intel being an Open Source Fraud, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd- miscm=115960734026283w=2. The firmware license for these devices has never been submitted to the OSI board for approval as an Open Source license, and I have never seen Intel claim that this license is an Open Source license. It might suit OpenBSD's advocacy purposes to deliberately misrepresent Intel's position, but doing so is unfair and is not especially helpful to the FreeBSD community, which does have somewhat decent relations with vendors like Intel, Lucent, Aironet, Broadcomm, and so forth. As to the point raised above, the firmware license actually does permit an individual user, including an OS developer, to copy and redistribute the software to others, so long as the recepient agrees to the license terms: LICENSE. You may copy and use the Software, subject to these conditions: 1. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. 2. You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute or transfer any part of the Software except as provided in this Agreement, and you agree to prevent unauthorized copying of the Software. 3. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. 4. You may not sublicense the Software. 5. The Software may contain the software or other property of third party suppliers. [ ... ] You may transfer the Software only if a copy of this license accompanies the Software and the recipient agrees to be fully bound by these terms. If a project such as OpenBSD wishes to redistribute the software, then it would probably be considered an Independent Software Vendor, and again the firmware license grants permission to redistribute the Intel Pro Wireless software, under the following terms: For OEMs, IHVs, and ISVs: LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Intel grants to you a nonexclusive, nontransferable, worldwide, fully paid-up license under Intel's copyrights to: (i) copy the Software internally for your own development and maintenance purposes; (ii) copy and distribute the
Re: ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi The manpages you've linked to explicitly state: This driver requires firmware to be loaded before it will work. You need to obtain ipwcontrol(8) from the IPW web page listed below to accomplish loading the firmware before ifconfig(8) will work. Is there some part of this which is unclear to you, Constantine? Yes, Chuck, some part is indeed unclear to me, precisely the part that explains why does one have to go into that much trouble to have a working system. If you are curious as to why things are the way they are, I suggest that you check the problems that are described in the misc@openbsd.org mailing list, and contact Intel people and say what you think about their user-unfriendly policy in regards to Intel Pro Wireless firmwares, which are REQUIRED to be loaded from the OS before the device functions, i.e. the OS developers must be allowed to freely distribute the firmware in order for the devices to work out-of-the-box. There's no need to be curious about the matter; the Intel Pro Wireless adaptors, like many other brands of wireless adaptors, use a software-controlled radio which is capable of broadcasting at higher power levels and/or at frequencies outside of those allocated for 802.11 connectivity for specific regulatory domains. The US FCC, along with other regulatory agencies in Europe such as ETSI and elsewhere, require that end-users not have completely open access to these radios to prevent problems from deliberate misuse such as interference with other frequency bands. Yes, regulatory bodies, of cause, table specific requirements that must be satisfied by systems that utilise RF, i.e. the manufacturer must make reasonable attempt to prevent users from using non-permitted frequencies. Not permitting the firmware to be redistributed has nothing to do with the FCC, however. This isn't a matter of choice on Intel's part; if you want this situation to change, you're going to have to obtain changes in the radio-frequency laws and policies in the US and a number of other countries first. No, firmware redistribution is ENTIRELY up to Intel. I want the firmware to be available under a BSD or ISC licence, just as with Ralink. Intel's firmware is already available, but under a different licence. Where does the FCC say that Intel must distribute firmware under a non-OSS-friendly licence? Again, is there some part of this that is unclear or which you fail to understand? Yes, precicely, I don't understand why you think FCC requires Intel to not release the firmware under a BSD-like licence. For some recent information about Intel being an Open Source Fraud, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd- miscm=115960734026283w=2. The firmware license for these devices has never been submitted to the OSI board for approval as an Open Source license, and I have never seen Intel claim that this license is an Open Source license. It might suit OpenBSD's advocacy purposes to deliberately misrepresent Intel's position, but doing so is unfair and is not especially helpful to the FreeBSD community, which does have somewhat decent relations with vendors like Intel, Lucent, Aironet, Broadcomm, and so forth. As to the point raised above, the firmware license actually does permit an individual user, including an OS developer, to copy and redistribute the software to others, so long as the recepient agrees to the license terms: LICENSE. You may copy and use the Software, subject to these conditions: 1. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. So if I don't have an Intel Wireless in the system, is it still legal to have the firmware in my system files? 2. You may not copy, modify, rent, sell, distribute or transfer any part of the Software except as provided in this Agreement, and you agree to prevent unauthorized copying of the Software. 3. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software. What's exactly the purpose of this term, if reverse engineering is permitted under many jurisdictions? Is it just to scare potentional reverse-engineers? 4. You may not sublicense the Software. 5. The Software may contain the software or other property of third party suppliers. [ ... ] You may transfer the Software only if a copy of this license accompanies the Software and the recipient agrees to be fully bound by these terms. If a project such as OpenBSD wishes to redistribute the software, then it would probably be considered an Independent Software Vendor, and again the
ipw(4) and iwi(4): Intel's Pro Wireless firmware licensing problems
Hi, My acquaintance with Unix started with FreeBSD, which I used for quite a while before discovering OpenBSD. I now mostly use OpenBSD, and I was wondering of how many FreeBSD users are aware about the licensing restrictions of Intel Pro Wireless family of wireless adapters? Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why Intel Wireless devices do not work by default? http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=iwi If you are curious as to why things are the way they are, I suggest that you check the problems that are described in the misc@openbsd.org mailing list, and contact Intel people and say what you think about their user-unfriendly policy in regards to Intel Pro Wireless firmwares, which are REQUIRED to be loaded from the OS before the device functions, i.e. the OS developers must be allowed to freely distribute the firmware in order for the devices to work out-of-the-box. For some recent information about Intel being an Open Source Fraud, see http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=115960734026283w=2. Cheers, Constantine. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
