OpenBSD [1] creator Theo de Raadt [interview [2]] 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 [3]]. 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 [4] [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.
Related Links:
- Archive of above thread [5]
- KernelTrap interview with Theo de Raadt [6]