Why don't ignore them and don't buy their products? I have already a list of vendors I'm not buying products from anymore, like Adaptec. I'm also encouraging people to buy products from OpenSource-friendly vendors, like RaLink.
//Maxim On Saturday 30 September 2006 12:28, Jonathan Gray wrote: > On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 03:03:57AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Regarding Intel wireless chips and distribution rights... > > > > > From: "Damien Bergamini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > [...] > > > > > > 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 PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > 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. > > 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?
