Damien Bergamini [interview] started a thread on the OpenBSD -misc mailing list in which he summarized Intel's policy toward open-source software being to "make us look like we're open-source friendly by opening a project on sourceforge," and, "give the open-source community the bare minimum so that they can serve as our beta-testers." Damien released a reverse engineered blob-free driver for an Intel wireless chipset earlier this year [story], but work is slow as Intel does not freely provide documentation to the chipset. OpenBSD's battle with Intel has been ongoing for some time [story] leading project creator Theo de Raadt [interview] to say, "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." As before, the goal is to get Intel to provide a freely distributable binary firmware.
Theo pointed out that when the open source community works together they can help improve the situation, "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." He explained that until Intel releases their firmware freely and without restrictions that they are not open source friendly as they claim, "by withholding, Intel is being an Open Source fraud." He went on to suggest that Intel should follow the example of other companies in the market, "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." He concluded by requesting that the open source community contact Intel to help get them to change their policies, "let's win back the rights to run the hardware we purchased."
From: Damien Bergamini [email blocked] To: OpenBSD -misc [email blocked] Subject: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src] Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:20:45 +0200 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 blocked] 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 majid.awad@intel.com
From: Theo de Raadt [email blocked] Subject: Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src] Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 03:03:57 -0600 Regarding Intel wireless chips and distribution rights... > From: "Damien Bergamini" <damien.bergamini@free.fr> > [...] > > 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 blocked] 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 majid.awad@intel.com 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 make them look "Open". (To quote a friend, Some asshole said he was "open", but he was only open for business. By withholding, Intel is being an Open Source fraud. 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 majid.awad@intel.com 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.
From: Jonathan Gray [email blocked] Subject: Re: Intel policy wrt OSS [was: Re: cvs.openbsd.org: src] Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 20:28:36 +1000 On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:03:57AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > Regarding Intel wireless chips and distribution rights... > > > Please feel free to let other open source communities know about this > matter. Thank you. We have been trying to make this happen for YEARS, and the situation is rapidly getting worse not better. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-misc&m=109994542424009&w=2 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?
"let's win back the rights to
"let's win back the rights to run the hardware we purchased."
Who the **** buys hardware he does not know to run under Linux? Not me. Crazy argument.
Like I said plenty times before, we need a hardware recommendation website that serves as a central platform for known-to-be-Linux-compatible hardware. It could also feature recommendations for hardware from OSS-friendly vendors (and the OGP results).
"Who the **** buys hardware h
"Who the **** buys hardware he does not know to run under Linux? Not me. Crazy argument."
1. This isn't about linux. It's about all open source operating systems.
2. You can try to avoid intel, but how much better would it be to be able to properly support their hardware? It's a pain in the ass to find an entire machine made of open source friendly chips.
Like I said plenty times before, we need a hardware recommendation website that serves as a central platform for known-to-be-Linux-compatible hardware. It could also feature recommendations for hardware from OSS-friendly vendors (and the OGP results).
vendorwatch.org
Are you suggesting it be bett
Are you suggesting it be better burying your head in the sand than to try and improve the situation? If so, sooner or later there will be no sand left for you to bury.
Cheers.
IBM/Adaptec
Is this not also the situation with IBM servers and their proprietary drivers for Adaptec SCSI/SATA controllers? x206, x306m, x345, etc.
Read the whole thing before y
Read the whole thing before you reply.
It works but it works poorly and this thing is about giving the right to redistribute the firmware, and not need to go to a special homepage to sign something before you can use the firmware.
Buy AMD Instead
I don't want to sound biased but ...
Who did most of the work/funding for 64bit x86 linux ... AMD ... & Intel tried to claim credit for it ...
AMD have been suporting the free bios project... Intel on the other hand have been obstructionist & tried to kill it off with a sham "open source" bios
Seriously ... next time you buy a PC or ordera server for work ... steer clear of anything with 'Intel Inside'
Seriously ... next time you b
Seriously ... next time you buy a PC or ordera server for work ... steer clear of anything with 'Intel Inside'
Except, of course, there are many instances in which you can't buy whatever you want. Right now, I work for a very very large company. This company has an agreement with another, very very large computer-making company (no, not IBM). When we need a new x86 server, or a new x86 workstation, guess which company is going to be our supplier? Yes, the very large computer company. Can you guess what they use? Yup, "Intel Inside". I have a 1U server right next to me now, with a sticker that says "Intel Pentium D Inside".
Don't misunderstand me: AMD is great. But, most of the time, in the real world, you don't get to choose: someone else is going to choose for you, based on criterias that are not yours. Tough, but that's life.
Real world != Big companies
But, most of the time, in the real world, you don't get to choose
This is only true if you define "the real world" to mean "big companies". In fact, big companies are only a small subset of "the real world" (a complete guess would be that their hardware purchases probably make up 40-50% of the market). There are plenty of small companies that very much belong to the real world, but where your statement isn't true (or is less true). As applied to big companies, you are of course correct.
Re: very very large company
Don't work for companies that operate that way. They suck. Life is too short...
Erm...
Not a very useful attitude... Maybe not as stark as saying "Don't live in countries whose President you don't agree with," but such amplifications illustrate the potential absurdity of the argument.
I work for a very large company, and I have many, many reasons why I will continue to do so. At the same time, all our PC procurement goes through another very large PC mfgr that's historically and famously been "Intel Inside" for just about everything.
Leaving them for that reason would be like leaving them because our corporate-preferred car rental agency prefers imports over domestics. (That doesn't happen to be the case, but it again highlights the absurdity of hyperfocusing on a detail that most of the time isn't relevant.)
Honey not Vinegar...
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.
... and by making statements like calling Intel "an open source fraud", you only further your chances of continuing to lose. It's a big company and if you find the right person to talk to, there's a good chance you can effect change. By complaining in your blog, you change very little.
Research not Ignorance ...
Do some research before spewing crap would you?
Theo and crew rarely go public with this stuff until months or years of contacting the company privately, trying to find the right people and asking for documentation in a polite fashion. After a certain length of time of Intel claiming to be open source friendly but repeatedly denying requests, they talk to the community about it and ask for help. They posted a couple of @intel.com emails of the people who should be contacted and, as a result, many people have sent letters of disapproval to Intel.
So, I'm curious, how much effort have you put into finding the right person to talk to, compared to whining about Theo on someone else's blog?
Agreed!
"Do some research before spewing crap would you?"
Well fucking said. That is all.
From personal experience
> by making statements like calling Intel "an open source fraud",
> you only further your chances of continuing to lose.
Intel repeatedly makes the living of all OSS developers pain. And not only OSS - small commercial companies are in the same situation.
To me the situation looks now the same as it looked when Intel released one of the first PCI 100Mbit Fast Ethernet chips: no documentation whatsoever, and when provided with NDA - you start thinking probably you have chosen wrong vendor. The same happened with 1Gbit Ethernet - the same freaking flirting with availability and very abusive NDAs. I have worked in Linux company which were requiring customized drivers - and my managers all told that Intel is one of the worst partner we had. (Situation is different of course if you happen to be of Fortune 500 company).
[ We also had funny situation, when Intel support engineer wasn't able to resolve one of our problems giving tentative "Impossible" response. Next day three people googled intensively and discovered Intel's own "Application Notes" for chip similar to one we used - with description on how precisely to solve our problem. We send clarification request to Intel's support person and he was sincerely surprised: engineer primarily charged with handling the product documentation was seeing the document first time. And of course document picked by Google was water-marked with usual pink "INTEL'S SECRET" on every page. It couldn't be more funnier than that. ]
We worked also with lots of Moto/Freescale hardware (PowerQUICC I/II platforms) and regardless of its bugginess we got much better/faster responses from Freescale.
In the end company just dropped all development based on Intel network solutions. Hardware is good - but getting/finding decent documentation was always pain.
My wild guess is that networking dept is just top bastardized one in Intel - since it's only "bonus" dept to core processor business. Intel higher-ups pay no attention to it - unless provoked.
Intel quite good, actually; don't damage other fronts by bashing
While I do wish that the Intel wireless card didn't need a binary-only firmware, or that the license on that firmware would at least permit redistribution, Intel actually does many good things for Free and Open Source Software.
For example, if you want to buy a new graphics card that will actually work with full 3D support in FOSS drivers, only Intel cards support that, because Intel specifically released a driver for their graphics chipsets. It supports all the latest graphics card features, without requiring any binary-only modules or HALs. It even supports the newest features, such as shaders.
Meanwhile, AMD/ATI and nVidia continue to provide binary-only drivers, and no help or documentation for people wanting to produce any. The only 3D support for those cards exists due to reverse engineering.
Now, if a set of cards exists which does not require binary-only, non-redistributable firmware, by all means recommend those above Intel's PRO/Wireless cards. Furthermore, when a company provides no help whatsoever to the Open Source community (binary-only drivers don't count), by all means recommend competitors who do, and complain (constructively) about the company that doesn't. However, when a company does provide useful help to the community. don't just bash them senselessly for what they *didn't*, as it certainly won't produce any useful results on the front you care about, and it may hurt other fronts that you don't.
Fortunately, most technical people know that the OpenBSD developers by no means speak for the Open Source community. I applaud their work in obtaining redistribution licenses for binary-only firmware, but please, can the bashing, and do more promoting of those companies which do cooperate.
Hopefully Intel will keep
Hopefully Intel will keep doing things like you mentioned, but I do want to note that this happened right after (or around) the time AMD bought ATI.
I guess Intel got some perspective and realized a little IP here or there wasn't that significant.
And hopefully these new cards are good and not bottom of the barrel.
>> However, when a company does provide useful help to the community. don't just bash them senselessly for what they *didn't*, as it certainly won't produce any useful results on the front you care about, and it may hurt other fronts that you don't.
I am guessing that the complaints were so as to put Intel's newest and significant contributions into perspective and not give them undue praise over say AMD.