Comments on: Blob free Intel Wireless drivers http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/ Where the urethane hits the pavement Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:34:18 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Fernando http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-4125 Fernando Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:39:54 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-4125 E ai Galera, use Linux Brazil ... E ai Galera, use Linux

Brazil …

]]> By: Natalia Gorbski http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-3815 Natalia Gorbski Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:56:55 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-3815 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. 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.

]]> By: Martin http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-2003 Martin Thu, 01 Jun 2006 13:51:12 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-2003 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 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

]]> By: J5 http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-2002 J5 Wed, 31 May 2006 05:01:06 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-2002 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. 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.

]]> By: J.B. Nicholson-Owens http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-2001 J.B. Nicholson-Owens Wed, 31 May 2006 01:46:54 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-2001 Why is the proprietary firmware binary not considered a "binary blob" but the proprietary driver is? Why is the proprietary firmware binary not considered a “binary blob” but the proprietary driver is?

]]> By: Jay http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-2000 Jay Tue, 30 May 2006 20:55:07 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-2000 Ubuntu ships the ipw2200 firmware. Is there a difference in interpretation of the license, compared to RedHat's? Ubuntu ships the ipw2200 firmware. Is there a difference in interpretation of the license, compared to RedHat’s?

]]> By: J5 http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-1999 J5 Tue, 30 May 2006 14:24:31 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-1999 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. 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.

]]> By: Tom Callaway http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-1998 Tom Callaway Tue, 30 May 2006 13:54:22 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-1998 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. 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.

]]> By: J5 http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-1997 J5 Tue, 30 May 2006 03:17:29 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-1997 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. 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.

]]> By: Scott Tsai http://www.j5live.com/2006/05/29/blob-free-intel-wireless-drivers/comment-page-1/#comment-1996 Scott Tsai Mon, 29 May 2006 17:43:18 +0000 http://www.j5live.com/?p=206#comment-1996 Note that even the new OpenBSD driver still requires the INTEL firmware. Is the firmware license considered acceptable for redistribution by Fedora? Note that even the new OpenBSD driver still requires the INTEL firmware.

Is the firmware license considered acceptable for redistribution by Fedora?

]]>