[nycbug-talk] Fwd: Firmware license
Wed Oct 27 12:26:01 EDT 2004
more on Intel. . .this could obviously profit all the BSDs. . .
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Theo de Raadt <deraadt at cvs.openbsd.org>
> Date: October 27, 2004 11:54:41 AM EDT
> To: Jason Crawford <jasonrcrawford at gmail.com>
> Cc: jketreno at linux.intel.com, misc at openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: Fw: Firmware license
> Now are are talking about Intel, not TI.
> I have decided that in light of
> - the lack of a frank dialogue on this issue (no phone calls)
> - Intel's policy is not coming from a person in Intel legal or
> who is capable of setting policy
> - The extremely hardline stance shown below
> It is time to take this to the next level.
> As consumers, here is the list of people at Intel that you can contact
> regarding this issue. We have been working for about a week and a bit
> to generate this list of contacts. It really is hard to generate such
> lists, because these companies really shelter their decision makers.
> We may have some of them wrong. Sorry, but noone at Intel ever told us
> who else to talk to.
> But as customers perhaps you can ask these people to get the message
> through to the right people at Intel, so that they will finally start
> up a frank dialogue on what open source friendly licensing means.
> is one of the last vendors on the same page.
> In an age where AMD and VIA and Adaptec and many Taiwanese hardware
> manufacturers are publishing complete documentation and mailing us
> development hardware, there is a serious disconnect with reality at
> Intel. Since they are a large manufacturer, perhaps we can save them
> from their arrogance.
> I have attempted to get the issue of Open Source friendly licensing on
> the table at Intel. One person has told us that their existing
> license is fine, because it is being used by some Linux vendors, but
> to this day they still have not told us which Linux vendors those are.
> I believe that it is a lie.
> I am below the radar at Intel Legal. Maybe they will listen to their
> roxanne.r.gryder at intel.com
> vivek.g.gupta at intel.com
> keith.holt at intel.com
> changwen.liu at intel.com
> art.martin at intel.com
> joe.pitarresi at intel.com
> emily.h.qi at intel.com
> john.sadowsky at intel.com
> charlie.tai at intel.com
> james.mike.wilson at intel.com
> salwan.searty at intel.com
> crystal.xiong at intel.com
> jketreno at linux.intel.com
> Mr Boyd Bangerter boyd.bangerter at intel.com (503) 264-7773
> Mr Eric Jacobsen eric.a.jacobsen at intel.com (480) 554-6078
> Mr Ducan Kitchin duncan.kitchin at intel.com +1 503 264 2727
> Mr Uriel Lemberger uriel.lemberger at intel.com +972 (4) 8655701
> Dr Ali Sadri ali.s.sadri at intel.com (858) 385-4571
> Dr Adrian Stephens adrian.p.stephons at intel.com +44 1223 763457
> Dr Chin C Tsien chih.c.tsien at intel.com +1 858 385 4317
> Dr Jesse Walker jesse.walker at intel.com +1 503 712 1849
> I have left one person off this list since they appear to be willing
> to have a dialogue still. If that too falls apart, I will be posting
> Peter's information as well.
> Companies who don't respect their customers do not deserve respect in
>> While Intel may feel it is not in Intel's best interest to release
>> its wireless firmware under the BSD license, there are many companies
>> that do business with open source code, not worrying about "IP"
>> issues, and they have gained many customers in the open source world
>> that they would otherwise not have had. And since Intel is not a
>> company that will want any customers from the Open Source world, I
>> will no longer be buying or recommending any Intel products, including
>> at my place of work where I have purchasing power. Just because code
>> is released Open Source does not mean you will lose profits, I hope
>> that your lawyers will see it that way soon.
>> On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:54:40 -0400 (EDT), Sunny Raspet
>> <slr at mordac.info> wrote:
>>> For what it's worth, I just received this from Mr. Ketrenos after
>>> contacting him to express my displeasure with Intel's licensing. I
>>> found it interesting enough to share with the list.
>>> Enjoy, or not, as the case may be.
>>> -Sunny Raspet
>>> --- Forwarded message follows ---
>>> From jketreno at linux.intel.com Tue Oct 26 16:30:44 2004
>>> Received: from orsfmr001.jf.intel.com (fmr12.intel.com
>>> by rincewind.mordac.info (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id
>>> for <slr at mordac.info>; Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:30:44 -0400 (EDT)
>>> Received: from talaria.jf.intel.com (talaria.jf.intel.com
>>> by orsfmr001.jf.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-
>>> outer.mc,v 1.15 2004/01/30 18:16:28 root Exp $) with ESMTP id
>>> Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:33:10 GMT
>>> Received: from linux.intel.com (hdlrvguser-343.hd.intel.com
>>> by talaria.jf.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-
>>> inner.mc,v 1.11 2004/07/29 22:51:53 root Exp $) with ESMTP id
>>> Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:25:29 GMT
>>> Message-ID: <417EB444.1000905 at linux.intel.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:32:04 -0500
>>> From: James Ketrenos <jketreno at linux.intel.com>
>>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b)
>>> Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4
>>> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>> To: undisclosed-recipient-list at linux.intel.com
>>> Subject: Firmware license
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com /
>>> Status: R Simple headers
>>> You are receiving this email because you recently made an inquiry
>>> regarding the
>>> license terms surrounding the firmware for the Intel PRO/Wireless
>>> network adapters.
>>> After speaking with Intel legal and business teams, the conclusion is
>>> that the
>>> BSD model outlined by you and others is not compatible with the
>>> Intel must place on the firmware. We appreciate the nature of the
>>> request but
>>> are unable to support a BSD release. The firmware is made of Intel
>>> code and
>>> code provided by third parties, and the license obligations we have
>>> the third
>>> party code prevents us from releasing the code under a BSD license.
>>> It is Intel's intent that the license covering the firmware be
>>> sufficient to
>>> allow [re]distribution to end users while ensuring that the
>>> property of Intel and its suppliers be properly protected. It is our
>>> that the majority of users have been satisfied with the current
>>> provisions and/or understand Intel's position, and are able comply
>>> license while enabling distribution to their end users. While we
>>> understand that
>>> the preference would be the release of the firmware driver under the
>>> BSD, we
>>> have enabled you with the means to redistribute the firmware to third
>>> through a broad, albeit proprietary, license.
>>> While we appreciate the open discussion on the issue re the BSD
>>> request, we
>>> trust that you will understand that Intel has provided its analysis
>>> request. Accordingly, this will be treated as the final messaging
>>> particular firmware driver issue.
More information about the talk