Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 09:46:05 +1000 Kel Modderman wrote: > > >> On Thursday 08 March 2007 04:23, Francesco Poli wrote: >> > [...] > >>> However, the license does not meet the DFSG (it's not even close to >>> meeting them...): has Intel been contacted and asked to provide the >>> firmware (with source code) in a DFSG-free manner (for instance, >>> under the terms of the GNU GPL v2, or of the Expat/MIT license)? >>> Intel has recently had some press coverage about their Free Software >>> drivers for integrated graphics chips: I appreciated that move, >>> maybe they are willing to get some more good publicity by freeing >>> this firmware... >>> >> Quoting from: >> http://intellinuxwireless.org/index.php?n=FAQ&s=license >> >> [quote] >> Q. The license for the binaries needed with the newer projects >> (ipw3945 and iwlwifi) seems much cleaner than the license for the >> ipw2100 and ipw2200. Can you change the terms of the older license? >> [ ipw2100 and ipw2200 specific ] >> A. Unfortunately, no. Those binaries contain intellectual property >> licensed from third parties, and Intel must follow certain >> contractual obligations in licensing for those components. The >> ipw3945 and iwlwifi related binaries are all Intel-developed, and we >> are able to use a simplified license for that product. >> [/quote] >> > > "We would really love to be more permissive, but we cannot, 'cause that > other evil guy forbids us." > > As I keep reading answers like this, I'm less and less convinced of > their good faith... All this pointing fingers to unspecified "third > parties" and passing the buck to them seems like a cheap excuse: if they > managed to get permission to use the "intellectual property" (whatever > that means) of some "third parties", they are probably also able to get > permission to disclose source code in a DFSG-free manner, as long as > they really want to. > After all, Intel has deep pockets, they could even pay enough money to > obtain copyright transfer, if necessary... > > Disappointed. > > > For some companies I would agree, but as has been said, intel has been opensourcing a lot lately, and as that FAQ says, later versions are free, which shows they must have some concern. For a lot of wifi cards (dunno about Intel's) it's regulatory - they can't sell cards that can be easily modified to exceed FCC limits, so they limit it in a binary firmware. If they gave away the source, people could easily modify the card to exceed the legal output power, and thus they can't give away source.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature