Mon 29 May 2006
Interesting article over at kernel trap. It seems there is a BSD driver for the new Intel wireless cards that do not require the binary daemon. The author takes a cheap shot at Linux, claiming driver devels are too afraid of pissing of Intel and are happy to ship the binary blob. I can say I am proud of Fedora’s stance on not shipping that binary blob but Damien Bergamini, the author of the driver, does hit on an important issue. Shipping said binary blobs does take the motivation out of making a working open source driver.
Mostly it is from the hardware vendors side. If they can get away with binary blobs and distros are willing to ship them, there is more incentive for them not to write an open source driver. If we allow the Intel wireless binary blob in it is just a signal to other vendors that they can keep their bits in a daemon and placate us with GPL’ed hooks.
It is not about us wanting to steal intellectual property and put it in the public domain. It is about us wanting to create a solid and stable operating system that works well with any hardware. We can’t do that if we can’t poke at the bits freely.
[read this post in: ar de es fr it ja ko pt ru zh-CN ]
May 29th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Note that even the new OpenBSD driver still requires the INTEL firmware.
Is the firmware license considered acceptable for redistribution by Fedora?
May 29th, 2006 at 11:17 pm
No, we can not ship the firmware because of licensing terms but as far as the GPL is concerned there is no problem because the firmware is considered part of the hardware.
May 30th, 2006 at 9:54 am
It’s not a binary daemon that the ipw**** cards need, its just firmware. And to be frank, the only reason we don’t distribute it is because Intel’s license doesn’t permit us to.
May 30th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Unless it has changed recently the ipw3945 do need a binary daemon. The older chips do not. The problem is not with the firmware but with that required daemon for the ipw3945.
May 30th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Ubuntu ships the ipw2200 firmware. Is there a difference in interpretation of the license, compared to RedHat’s?
May 30th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Why is the proprietary firmware binary not considered a “binary blob” but the proprietary driver is?
May 31st, 2006 at 1:01 am
Jay that is something for Fedora Legal to answer. Not me.
J.B., it is considered part of the hardware, is executed by the hardware, not the OS, and doesn’t touch any GPL’ed code.
June 1st, 2006 at 9:51 am
OpenBSD ships firmware that runs on the CPU on the hardware it self. OpenBSD ships this kind of firmware for different kinds of hardware.
OpenBSD do not ship binary blobs that runs on the main computer it self.
Information about the driver:
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20060515191108
August 7th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
The fundamental difference between a binary blob and a firmware is the usage of a binary blob within the runtime environment of the operating system, while a firmware runs entirely on the hardware, while interacting with the operating system. A binary blob can do anything it wants in the operating system at the kernel’s permission level. A firmware cannot contain a root compramising piece of code, a binary blob can.
August 13th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
E ai Galera, use Linux
Brazil …