OpenBSD creator Theo de Raadt [interview] announced that Intel has refused his request to permit that the firmware for their wireless chipsets be made freely distributable. He explains, "I had asked for free terms under which we (and Linux, anyone) can redistribute the firmwares for their wireless chipsets. Without these firmware files included in OpenBSD, users must go do some click-through license at some web site to get at the files. Without those files, these devices are just bits of metal, plastic, and sand." Intel is one of several companies being approached by OpenBSD in a coordinated effort to try and free up the availability of firmware for wireless chipsets [story]. Several vendors including Symbol, Zydas, and Atmel have responded favorably, licensing their firmwares so that they can be distributed freely with OpenBSD.
As to the reason Intel refused to update their licensing, Theo explained that they referenced obligations to outside parties. Further clarification as to exactly what that means was not provided by the company. Theo went on to note that though this concludes his dealings with Intel, users are still encouraged to contact them and express their concern for this policy, "maybe they will listen to enough customers, or they will learn to not make this mistake again with future chipsets. I for one have already decided that I will never recommend an Intel product to anyone ever if there is choice. (There is almost always choice)."
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked] To: misc Subject: Intel says no to permitting firmware redistribution Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:38:28 -0700 (MST) Intel has said no. I had asked for free terms under which we (and Linux, anyone) can redistribute the firmwares for their wireless chipsets. Without these firmware files included in OpenBSD, users must go do some click-through license at some web site to get at the files. Without those files, these devices are just bits of metal, plastic, and sand. Currently there is a contract that vendors must agree to, and a seperate contract that users must agree to. In their mind a vendor is someone who distributes. In our mind, anyone can be a vendor or a user. That is why we wanted no agreement, just let us do distribute, use, and redistribute these files. The vendor contract locks your users in. (Not surprisingly, two Linux vendors have decided that the contracts Intel has are fine: You can ask Suse and Mandrake why they believe that locking their users into non-free contracts like this in their distributions is ok, too) Intel has cleverly written up an FAQ that describes what the Licenses mean. If you read it, please doubt it. The FAQ's demands do not match what the actual license says. The license restricts rights more than the FAQ states. It took Intel about two weeks to come back and say that they cannot give us freer redistribution rights. The claim is that they have 'obligations' to more than outside 1 party that prevents them from doing so. Further questioning did not lead me to an answer. Did Intel link their firmware against libraries from some other vendor? Are they held back because of some compiler or assembler toolkit they used? Is this related to past Intel chipset relationships with Phillips or other early wireless companies that they participated with or bought? Do they wish to deprecate these chipsets because of some agreement with someone else or because of future plans? Or is there some deal to try to keep wireless chipset technologies only within the realm of Microsoft Windows and access point use? I have not been told. Here we have a very large company somehow saying that they are contractually held from letting their customers use the devices they bought as they need to. I asked how many customers Intel would have to hear from, or how many they were willing to disenfranchise, before they would put effort into finding a way past their (claimed) legal problems. I got no answers. So I give up. I know that I am not going to get anywhere. HOWEVER, as consumers of their products I will as my last action tell you who you can talk to at Intel. Maybe they will listen to enough customers, or they will learn to not make this mistake again with future chipsets. I for one have already decided that I will never recommend an Intel product to anyone ever if there is choice. (There is almost always choice). Perhaps you -- their consumers -- can do better. Good luck. -- [email blocked] 858 391 1857 [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] [email blocked] Mr Boyd Bangerter [email blocked] (503) 264-7773 Mr Eric Jacobsen [email blocked] (480) 554-6078 Mr Ducan Kitchin [email blocked] +1 503 264 2727 Mr Uriel Lemberger [email blocked] +972 (4) 8655701 Dr Ali Sadri ali.s.[email blocked] (858) 385-4571 Dr Adrian Stephens [email blocked] +44 1223 763457 Dr Chin C Tsien [email blocked] +1 858 385 4317 Dr Jesse Walker [email blocked] +1 503 712 1849 -- ps. Alternatively if someone wants a real challenge, perhaps it is time to reverse engineer these firmwares, which is totally legal.
email addresses
To obtain the above email addresses, click 'Archive of above thread' at the end of the article. This is true for _all_ KernelTrap postings.
WIntel
> Or is there
>some deal to try to keep wireless chipset technologies only within
>the
>realm of Microsoft Windows and access point use
It looks like WIntel is still a live. Probably Microsoft is paying/has contract to stop Intel to not support for open source, to make open source unfeasible to use.
I never was interested in Wireless because of these issues.
Add Intel to Boycott list.
Give me a break
Your tinfoil hat is too tight. It's cutting off circulation to your brain. Microsoft has never developed wireless hardware. Hell, right now they're reselling Linksys as their own.
WIntel
Microsoft can use its monopoly and abuse it to serve its need.
Microsoft is trying to stop open source probably try and spread FUD, losy TCO study "Get The Facts", or make open source unfeasible or even focus on lock-in technology ("Trusted Computing" (formely known as Palladium, also known as treacherous computing (obligatory link http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html)+ DRM).
Really?
AS far as i know, the ms access points (which they stopped selling when they couldn't compete), were based on broadcom platform, but had different OS than the linksys ones (Green Hills, I think). If they really are rebranding linksys harware now, that would be too amusing to be true.
Because linksys access points run Linux these days :)
not really
The API to the wireless cards are only available in Windows. And you have to pay a license to access these apis.
Wireless Card API
I thought the drivers confirm to Windows NDIS Specification. To avoid paying any license, you could use ndiswrapper, although this is not the ideal solution. The ideal solution is to get a wireless card that has native drivers.
I know FreeBSD-5.3 has this included.
For Linux see http://ndiswrapper.sourceforge.net/
MS selling Linksys?
With most of Linksys devices use embedded Linux does this mean the MS is now willingly supporting Linux?
Where's Dirk?
I wonder what Intel's great Open Source advocate (the man who was SUSE's CTO not too long ago) is good for.
wintel
The only thing i liked from intel is their ethernet card.
Intel Firmware FAQ
Intel allows any Linux/BSD/Whatever distribution to distribute their firmware for the ipw2100/ipw2200 drivers as described in http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware_faq.php
What Theo (and others) want is the permission to do _anything_ they feel like with the firmware - which might include reverse engineering, low-level modifications, etc.
I think it's fairly obvious why a company, any company, wouldn't want to allow people to do that.
Intel Firmware FAQ
Wrong. Theo et.al only want to *distribute* the firmware with no strings attached. Reverse engineering is already legal (at least in some parts of the world) and nobody ever mentioned modifications to firmware the which is pointless and very difficult without the source code to the firmware.
Have you actually _read_ the faq and the license? Distribution is NOT free.
There are loads of restrictions placed on the distributor AND the user. Considering the fact that the user/distributor distinction is almost non-existent in the open-source community, the problem is more convoluted than the faq suggests. Go read the license (again) and try to see how the inclusion of the firmware into a distribution/os will make it and its users less free.
Intel Firmware FAQ
Have you actually read the FAQ?
Have you actually read Theo's
Have you actually read Theo's email and the License? Obviously not.
i think you need to pay more
i think you need to pay more attention, especially to question 3. if you give an openbsd (or linux, ...) cd to your friend, you can't let it leave your hands until you explain about the intel firmware on it. or you would, except the firmware isn't on openbsd cds of course. install openbsd some time. you'll notice that there's no "agree to this license" screen to get past.
Intel Firmware License
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ BEFORE INSTALLING OR USING THIS INTEL® SOFTWARE
Do not use or load this firmware (the "Software") until you have carefully read the following terms and conditions. By loading or using the Software, you agree to the terms of this Agreement. If you do not wish to so agree, do not install or use the Software.
LICENSEES: Please note:
* If you are an End-User, only Exhibit A, the SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT, applies.
* If you are an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM), Independent Hardware Vendor (IHV), or Independent Software Vendor (ISV), this complete Agreement applies
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 Software to your end-users, but only under a license agreement with terms at least as restrictive as those contained in Intel's Final, Single User License Agreement, attached as Exhibit A; and (iii) modify, copy and distribute the end-user documentation which may accompany the Software, but only in association with the Software.
If you are not the final manufacturer or vendor of a computer system or software program incorporating the Software, then you may transfer a copy of the Software, including any related documentation (modified or unmodified) to your recipient for use in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, provided such recipient agrees to be fully bound by the terms hereof. You shall not otherwise assign, sublicense, lease, or in any other way transfer or disclose Software to any third party. You may not, nor may you assist any other person or entity to modify, translate, convert to another programming language, decompile, reverse engineer, or disassemble any portion of the Software or otherwise attempt to derive source code from any object code modules of the Software or any internal data files generated by the Software. Your rights to redistribute the Software shall be contingent upon your installation of this Agreement in its entirety in the same directory as the Software.
CONFIDENTIALITY. If you wish to have a third party consultant or subcontractor ("Contractor") perform work on your behalf which involves access to or use of Software, you shall obtain a written confidentiality agreement from the Contractor which contains provisions with respect to access to or use of the Software no less restrictive than those set forth in this Agreement and excluding any distribution rights, and use for any other purpose. Except as expressly provided herein, you shall not disclose the terms or existence of this Agreement or use Intel's name in any publications, advertisements, or other announcements without Intel's prior written consent. You do not have any rights to use any Intel trademarks or logos.
OWNERSHIP OF SOFTWARE AND COPYRIGHTS. Software and accompanying materials, if any, are owned by Intel or its suppliers and licensors and may be protected by copyright, trademark, patent and trade secret law and international treaties. Any rights, express or implied, in the intellectual property embodied in the foregoing, other than those specified in this Agreement, are reserved by Intel and its suppliers and licensors or otherwise as set forth in any applicable open source license agreement. You will keep the Software free of liens, attachments, and other encumbrances. You agree not to remove any proprietary notices and/or any labels from the Software and accompanying materials without prior written approval by Intel
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL INTEL OR ITS SUPPLIERS AND LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER FROM ANY CAUSE OF ACTION OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR LOST INFORMATION) ARISING OUT OF THE USE, MODIFICATION, OR INABILITY TO USE THE INTEL SOFTWARE, OR OTHERWISE, NOR FOR PUNITIVE, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR SPECIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND, EVEN IF INTEL OR ITS SUPPLIERS AND LICENSORS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS PROHIBIT EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, SO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS MAY NOT APPLY. YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS THAT VARY BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS.
EXCLUSION OF WARRANTIES. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND POSSIBLY WITH FAULTS. UNLESS EXPRESSLY AGREED OTHERWISE, INTEL AND ITS SUPPLIERS AND LICENSORS DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES AND GUARANTEES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intel does not warrant or assume responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within the Software. You assume all liability, financial or otherwise, associated with Your use or disposition of the Software.
APPLICABLE LAW. Claims arising under this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of State of California], excluding its principles of conflict of laws and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Sale of Goods.
WAIVER AND AMENDMENT. No modification, amendment or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by an officer of Intel. No failure or delay in exercising any right, power, or remedy under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver of any such right, power or remedy. Without limiting the foregoing, terms and conditions on any purchase orders or similar materials submitted by you to Intel, and any terms contained in Intel’s standard acknowledgment form that are in conflict with these terms, shall be of no force or effect.
SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such provision shall be changed and interpreted so as to best accomplish the objectives of the original provision to the fullest extent allowed by law and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
EXPORT RESTRICTIONS. Each party acknowledges that the Software is subject to applicable import and export regulations of the United States and of the countries in which each party transacts business, specifically including U.S. Export Administration Act and Export Administration Regulations. Each party shall comply with such laws and regulations, as well as all other laws and regulations applicable to the Software. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each party agrees that it will not export, re-export, transfer or divert any of the Software or the direct programs thereof to any restricted place or party in accordance with U.S. export regulations. Note that Software containing encryption may be subject to additional restrictions.
GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. The Software is provided with "RESTRICTED RIGHTS." Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in FAR52.227-14 and DFAR252.227-7013 et seq. or their successors. Use of the Software by the Government constitutes acknowledgment of Intel's proprietary rights therein. Contractor or Manufacturer is Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95052.
TERMINATION OF THE AGREEMENT. Intel may terminate this Agreement if you violate its terms. Upon termination, you will immediately destroy the Software or return all copies of the Software to Intel.
EXHIBIT "A"
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Final, Single User)
IMPORTANT - READ BEFORE COPYING, INSTALLING OR USING.Do not use or load this firmware image (the "Software") until you have carefully read the following terms and conditions. By loading or using the Software, you agree to the terms of this Agreement. If you do not wish to so agree, do not install or use the Software.
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.
OWNERSHIP OF SOFTWARE AND COPYRIGHTS. Title to all copies of the Software remains with Intel or its suppliers. The Software is copyrighted and protected by the laws of the United States and other countries, and international treaty provisions. You may not remove any copyright notices from the Software. Intel may make changes to the Software, or items referenced therein, at any time without notice, but is not obligated to support or update the Software. Except as otherwise expressly provided, Intel grants no express or implied right under Intel patents, copyrights, trademarks, or other intellectual property rights. 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.
EXCLUSION OF OTHER WARRANTIES EXCEPT AS PROVIDED ABOVE, THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF ANY KIND INCLUDING WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGEMENT, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Intel does not warrant or assume responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within the Software.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL INTEL OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR LOST INFORMATION) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF INTEL HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS PROHIBIT EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY FOR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONSEQUENTIAL OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. YOU MAY ALSO HAVE OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS THAT VARY BETWEEN JURISDICTIONS.
TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. Intel may terminate this Agreement at any time if you violate its terms. Upon termination, you will immediately destroy the Software.
APPLICABLE LAWS. Claims arising under this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of California, excluding its principles of conflict of laws and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Sale of Goods. You may not export the Software in violation of applicable export laws and regulations. Intel is not obligated under any other agreements unless they are in writing and signed by an authorized representative of Intel.
GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. The Software is provided with "RESTRICTED RIGHTS." Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to restrictions as set forth in FAR52.227-14 and DFAR252.227-7013 et seq. or their successors. Use of the Software by the Government constitutes acknowledgment of Intel's proprietary rights therein. Contractor or Manufacturer is Intel Corporation, 2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, CA 95052.
Clause II
Clause II of the License Agreement for OEMs, IHVs, and ISVs states the flowing:
I'm not lawyer but couldn't the developers and distributers of OpenBSD, Linux and other such software be considered OEM's under the law? Just because they license their software at no cost shouldn't affect the argument. If that is true thn what in this license is restricting people from redistributing the binary blob we all call firmware as long as the applicable license is included and no further terms of it are breached?
Clause II
> developers and distributers of OpenBSD, Linux and other such >software
> be considered OEM's under the law
IANAL, yes because OpenBSD, Linux et all are distributing to end-users. In fact, if you give your friend the firmware, you would be considered as a Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) or Independent Software Vendor (ISV).
> what in this license is restricting people from redistributing the
> binary blob we all call firmware
IANAL, Reading the license, it required for end-users to agree to the stuff under the heading "SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT (Final, Single User)" hence a contractual binding, this restricts the end-user.
IANAL, The distributor is required place "LICENSE" file in the directory as the firmware and indicate its license before installing/copying it.
I posted the entire license to make it clear of Intel's Firmware License.
I wish knew more about Law.
Does anyone have a Law degree or is a lawyer? If so speak up
The two licenses are separate
The two licenses are separate. It appears that anyone can download the software from Intel and distribute it, but duplicating a set of openbsd cds with the firmware on them is not acceptable. This doesn't make much difference while Intel is distributing the files from their web site because anyone can agree to the license on the web site and then copy the cds. If Intel ever stops distributing the files or offering OEM contracts then duplicating openbsd cds with the firmware would be illegal.
Reverise Engineer?
> Alternatively if someone wants a real challenge, perhaps it is
> time to reverse engineer these firmwares, which is totally legal.
IANAL, but the license for the firmware says:
>You may not, nor may you assist any other person or entity to modify,
>translate, convert to another programming language, decompile, reverse
>engineer, or disassemble any portion of the Software or otherwise
>attempt to derive source code from any object code modules of the
> Software or any internal data files generated by the Software.
>> Alternatively if someone w
>> Alternatively if someone wants a real challenge, perhaps it is
>> time to reverse engineer these firmwares, which is totally legal.
>IANAL, but the license for the firmware says:
Different meanings for reverse engineer here. Theo means throwing stuff at the device, reading specs for components, etc, until you write a compatible firmware.
Reverse engineer in the licence is a way of manipluating the original firmware, for example, attatching it to a debugger.
One thing to keep in mind is that the licence is attatched to the firmware, not the hardware. If you do not download the firmware, or manipulate the firmwares files, then whatever you can do with the hardware to make it work is pretty much legal, at least currently, in the US.
>> Alternatively if someone w
How do you know what Theo meant by "reverse engineering"?
reverse engineer
I take it to mean develop firmware from specs not from manipulating the firmware you downloaded from intel. Thats how its always been done right? Manipulating downloaded binary software is only done by those looking for exploits. It is easier to write from specs and descriptions than trying to decipher binary code.
Developing from spec
I thought developing from a spec should not be called reverse engineer.
Got to agree...
Just from its name, reverse engineering suggests that the normal process is done backwards (e.g. use the end product and find/create the original components).
Developing a spec for the firmware using published specs from known elements (such as the chips used and the API exposed by the firmware) seems to be more like re-engineering than reverse engineering.
Disclaimer: this is the way I see it, and it is only my opinion!
reverse engineering
I think my original post was wrong. Reverse engineering really is reverse engineering. There is no specs no register descriptions. That means we start from the firmware. We disassemble it and deduce the register specs from there. Thats very difficult and that is exactly what the license prohibits. I think its better to boycott intel wireless chipsets.
reverse engineering
If it is legal in your country to do reverse engineering and stated in a law granting that right then no license can legislate otherwise and contradict a socially stablished law. It would be a different case if that right is not explicitly stated... then it is a different kind of right. The first case would be like having a license saying that you cannot sue the vendor in any case, for instance if he doesn't respect consumer laws...
Reverse Engineering
If the firmware is not used in reverse engineering, you would being avoiding the licensing issue.
The firmware may be protected with Intellectual Property Laws.
If it is legal in your country to do reverse engineering and stated
in a law granting that right then no license can legislate
otherwise and contradict a socially stablished law.
Many laws also contradict each other however the license does state:
APPLICABLE LAWS. Claims arising under this Agreement shall be
governed by the laws of California, excluding its principles of
conflict of laws and the United Nations Convention on Contracts for
the Sale of Goods. You may not export the Software in violation of
applicable export laws and regulations. Intel is not obligated under
any other agreements unless they are in writing and signed by an
authorized representative of Intel.
The first case would be like having a license saying that you cannot
sue the vendor in any case, for instance if he doesn't respect
consumer laws...
Accepting a license is a contractual binding and also a form of jurisdiction. Reverse engineering is explictly prohibit, by doing reverse engineer you have effectively violated the license. Contractual Laws are well established and might stand up in court.
I also know that Wireless Cards are subject to FCC Regulations that prohibits open source firmware for Wireless Cards.
However, if you wish to engage in reverse engineering, I strongly recommend consulting a lawyer.
No, it's more accurate the other way
engineering: turning a spec into a working device
reverse engineering: turning a working device into a spec
Almost 100% of the time reverse engineering is followed by creating another working device. Doing it correctly that is performed as a separate step, by a separate group of people who have no communications with the first group other than the created spec.
Some people use the term to mean different things:
reverse engineering: decompiling binaries (this is a narrow and IMHO wrong definition)
reverse engineering: creating a second working device based on information obtained from another working device (this is what you used, and while it make sense, it ignores the fact that I can reverse engineer something without ever creating another working device)
Just a thought...
I was just wondering, how about doing the same thing as several Linux distros have done in similar situations - bundle an installer with the OS, that downloads the requires files, shows the mandatory blah-blahs and then installs the files.
thats not the point
This is political in the sense that everybody should be able to use the HW without beeing bound to some license agreements. While this is possible it is very cumbersome and inconvinient.
yes
Consider the 802.11g firmware issue. You've got to have the firmware on-hand, or your installation will be tough. Sure, you can probably acquire it somehow, then put it on a thumb drive, or CD, or whatever.
It makes a lot of sense to put all the junk in one sock, though, so you can do compatibility testing.
Ultimately, the FOSS world needs to word-of-mouth advertise for enlightened hardware manufacturers, so that the business case is plain for the more intellectually challenged corporations. Who are the cool ones?
I bought NetGear, didn't get fired for it, and, after several days researching WTF, I brought it up under a 2.6.x kernel. Sure wish it hadn't required such a deep dig into my bag of skillz/masochism to figure out the magic trick.
Agree
I think the end-user should know what wireless cards do work with the distribution, the ideal solution is have to a whitelist. I know building a whitelist can take some time.
So at least, the end-user can purchase a wireless card that will work to avoid any cumbersome and inconvinient.
The problem is end-user are not aware of what hardware is supported officially from the distribution.
I got it, but...
I understand, but sometimes the politics tend to get in the way when it comes to the point where you have to decide whenever you'll take what you've got and try to make the best out of it, or you'll refuse to co-operate at all.
Usually the latter leads to the point where the only loser is the end user, who might feel sympathetic for the developer, but yet also angry as the piece of hardware could work if someone could put their personal ideals in hold for a moment and just accept the situation.
Now don't get me wrong, agreeing on some B/S EULAs and making crude "download firmware from vendor's website" hacks to get your hardware to work blows, but the ultimate loser is always the end user, who feels betrayed by both, the OS and HW vendors.
intel suckz big time for this
intel suckz big time for this.
The dictionary is your friend
By honoring their license agreements and protecting their IP? Yeah, screw them! *groan*
You're feeding a flamebait with flammage
Obviously the original post had little redeeming value. But it was obvious that it was not talking about Intel honoring their contractual obligations with some other company but the fact they refuse to produce wireless devices which can be used with OpenBSD.
It sounds like intel has no choice
If Intel has license agreements with other companies who will not flex on their licenses to Intel, there is nothing Intel can do. It's also not surprising that Intel made such agreements in the first place - they probably never thought this might even be an issue, and they're just showing that they're smart enough not to develop in-house when there's perfectly good code for sale/use already. On the other hand, they've just found out the downside of not writing all your code in-house - control.
Frankly, if they did fully control the code this decision would be frustrating and disappointing, but probably just a victory of the corporate lawyers over saner heads.
Comments such as yours don't help improve the situation, and only add to the depressingly common impression among "business" IT folks that OSS users have no manners or reasoning ability. Grr.