Wireless in FC4

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:18:25 +1100, Rodd Clarkson <rodd at clarkson.id.au> wrote:

> I'm rapidly forming the opinion that firmware isn't software and that as
> such has no place in the software chain.  It's a fine line of
> distinction, but as someone asked, are we going to stop supporting
> hardware that have firmware upgrades on their chipset because the
> firmware isn't 'open'?  And if not, what's the difference between
> hardware where the firmware is stored on a chipset and hardware where
> the firmware is stored on the hard-disk?

What's the difference? Clearly its one of user expectation as to who
is suppose to be distributing the firmware.  The difference is Fedora
doesn't distribute firmware that is stored in hardware devices and
thus doesn't have to ever deal with the legal questions surrounding
the re-distribution rights regarding the firmware.  Similarly... no
one expects fedora to distribute firmware upgrades for hardware
devices where the firmware is stored in the device, there is clearly
an expectation there that the hardware manufactures are where you go
to get any required firmware updates. Questions like... does Fedora
have the right to re-distribute the firmware upgrade for my dvd burner
never comes up.. because there is no expectation that any linux distro
should be distributing that sort of firmware upgrade.

But for some reason there is a growing expectation that linux distros
should be distributing the firmware for devices that can not store
firmware internally. Thats a big jump in perception.  No one expects
Fedora to be shipping bios updates for motherboards... even though
having the most recent bios update can greatly impact the
distributions ability to negotiate some aspects of hardware like acpi.
And no one goes out into left field that Fedora has dropped support
for a motherboard simply because users have to get the latest bios
from the board vender for Fedora to work on it properly.

What we are seeing now with the call for wireless firmware to be
included runs straight into issues of re-distribution of copyrighted
works in a way that firmware stored on hardware completely sidesteps. 
Having a way to shove binary firmware blobs over to hardware is a
necessary piece of technology, and no one is suggesting that
technology be done away with. In fact it would be great if i could
stay in linux and shove firmware and bios updates to any hardware
device i own.  But making that technology available to inject vendor
firmware into hardware is drastically different issue than shifting
the distribution focus from the vendors down to the operating system
distributors. And frankly i think its a raw deal for the
distributors... no matter what piece of hardware we are talking about.

If a bios update or a dvd drive firmware update or a wireless card
firmware blob fails to work... if those items are distributed by the
linux distributor.. they get the blunt of the complaints..simply
because they distribute them. And thats a raw deal.  If we can get
bios updates from hardware oems or board vendors.. and we can get
firmware updates from dvd drive vendors.. we can certaintly get the
wireless firmware from card vendors or oems.  I have no idea why the
expectation surrounding firmware distribution has changed with these
devices.

-jef