Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
Hi, On Sat, 30.09.2006 at 12:43:00 +0200, Maxim Bourmistrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't ignore them and don't buy their products? this is easier said than done. I have already a list of vendors I'm not buying products from anymore, like Adaptec. I also have such a list which eg. includes D-Link. Wasn't there a site that named no-go vendors? Is it feasible to have such a site w/o being buried in cease-and-desist letters (and lawsuits)? I'm also encouraging people to buy products from OpenSource-friendly vendors, like RaLink. That's also what I do, but this doesn't extend well into corporate usage where people often purchase quantities of higher-priced hardware and then realize only afterwards that the stuff doesn't work correctly. OTOH, they want some vendor who can support their products, not Joe's Garage who might go bust the next week, or hit a roadside tree. I already had such a case where the planned OpenBSD usage had to be changed to Linux because of hardware support. In the future, if this trend continues, this might mean only some-corporate-non-open-linux-with-binaries (NVidia, Intel, ATI, IBM and some others come to mind), not to speak of *BSD. So, we still need to convince more vendors to do the right thing, and support things like opencores.org or the F-CPU project, if possible. 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 products? Fully agreed! Best, --Toni++
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:03:57AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: [snip] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. Does anyone happen to have a snail-mail address for Majid? -Damian
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
On 2006/09/30 20:19, Bill wrote: If Intel was more cooperative, would it help with getting the Intel Pro/1000MT Dual I have sitting on my desk working? I have the version that don't work. I don't know about the duals, but I had a not-working quad that was receptive to having irq assignments changed in bios setup.
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
On 9/30/06, Theo de Raadt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. (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). 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Great! I did get an HP laptop from a person who wanted to run OpenBSD on it. it has the iwi(4) wireless chipset for which I had to manually download the firmware from Damien's website. I was just about to write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as directed in the man page for iwi(4) Thankyou so much for the updated mail address. 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. Sure :-) Kind Regards Siju
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
On 9/30/06, Maxim Bourmistrov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why don't ignore them and don't buy their products? don't buy their productss. but don't ignore them either. let them know the reason why you don'y buy their products. help them change and improve their business. :-) Kind Regards Siju
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
Regarding Intel wireless chips and distribution rights... From: Damien Bergamini [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Intel's policy with respect to open-source software[1] 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 [1] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] 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
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
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 PROTECTED] [...] Intel's policy with respect to open-source software[1] 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 [1] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] 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
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
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. //Maxim 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 PROTECTED] [...] Intel's policy with respect to open-source software[1] 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 [1] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] 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
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
Theo de Raadt wrote: 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] So let's win back the rights to run the hardware we purchased. Theo, in the past you have asked that we CC you with any messages we send off to the offending company. Do you want this to happen in this situation as well? Breeno
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
That's what I am doing too! I am trying to convince all of our customers to not use the products of Open Source unfreandly vendors. And guess what? They are going to buy the hardware we recommend them because we know what is working and what not. And most of our customers are running Open Source operating systems. We had a couple of Adaptec controllers and now we are using LSI controllers. And if nothing changes I am not going to recommend Intel hardware anymore, because we have a choice and we are not forced to use Intel hardware. If Intel wants us to actually recommend or use their hardware then they should satisfy our needs. On (30/09/06 12:43), Maxim Bourmistrov wrote: 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. //Maxim 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 PROTECTED] [...] Intel's policy with respect to open-source software[1] 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 [1] 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 PROTECTED] 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
Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src]
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:57:10 +0200 Robert Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED] spake: That's what I am doing too! I am trying to convince all of our customers to not use the products of Open Source unfreandly vendors. And guess what? They are going to buy the hardware we recommend them because we know what is working and what not. And most of our customers are running Open Source operating systems. We had a couple of Adaptec controllers and now we are using LSI controllers. Yeah, we are in the same boat. We have to replace some, and will not be using the Adaptec controllers. LSI seems like a good idea. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] If Intel was more cooperative, would it help with getting the Intel Pro/1000MT Dual I have sitting on my desk working? I have the version that don't work. If so, is that Majid's area, or is he specifically wireless? BTW: On a side note, CARP was a big disappointment. I set aside a whole afternoon to set up redundant web servers... it was like 4 lines of code on each box. Come on... where is the fun and challenge in that ;) I know the It just works philosophy, but geeeze.
