Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 15:20:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>
To: alice <alice@ayaya.dev>
cc: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>, 
    Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola@libero.it>, 
    Winston Weinert <winston@ml1.net>, ~alpine/users@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: ipw2100 wifi card firmware
In-Reply-To: <CNOGTU7H8RZ5.3BK216FYLUEVO@sumire>
Message-ID: <7eddf22-613c-7d48-9a78-12609bb8712@dereferenced.org>
References: <bdb05306-0f84-50d6-c71c-ff4b311d7ffb@libero.it> <005dc987-0461-9189-383e-d690b7686e96@ml1.net> <d03805ad-4f6e-ef23-db58-dde2bf32ae45@libero.it> <CNOFY00I1FSZ.294LCIZHOORKP@sumire> <eda4842d-5be7-5dfb-c9c6-23f927764d46@dereferenced.org>
 <CNOGTU7H8RZ5.3BK216FYLUEVO@sumire>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

Hi,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, alice wrote:

> On Mon Oct 17, 2022 at 9:28 PM CEST, Ariadne Conill wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2022, alice wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon Oct 17, 2022 at 9:07 PM CEST, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
>>>> Hi Winston,
>>>>
>>>> I was unable to download the firmware directly from sourceforge.net, my
>>>> browser(s) continue to fail the accept test!
>>>> However, I did as you suggested: got the Debian package, "ar x" and then
>>>> tar the data file... put the firmware in /lib/firmware... and yes, my
>>>> ThinkPad connects to the wireless, the WiFi LED lights up.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why Alpine cannot have such a package? I have seen other
>>>> non-free firmware (how much I hate that... a reason why I skipped all
>>>> those "libre" distributions: without binary blobs a laptop is almost
>>>> useless nowadays).
>>> alpine doesn't ship anything non-free, with really the only exception
>>> being firmware under the "linux-firmware" project umbrella (and anything
>>> overlooked, of course). that project (afaik) has the vendors adding
>>> firmware to it by petitioning it directly, and it's more or less a
>>> community consensus that it gets a pass since otherwise nothing is
>>> really usable at all. that part is the distinction from "libre" distros
>>> that ship nothing and let you use them on like 5 laptops (maybe a bit
>>> harsh, but you know what i mean).
>>>
>>> but as for everything else, it is all free software. no shortcuts there.
>>>
>>> as for the ipw2x00 firmware, the licence isn't really much different than a
>>> lot of things in linux-firmware:
>>>
>>> ipw2100 firmware license For OEMs, IHVs, and ISVs:
>>> =================================================
>>>
>>> LICENSE. This Software is licensed for use only in conjunction with
>>> Intel component products. Use of the Software in conjunction with
>>> non-Intel component products is not licensed hereunder. Subject to the
>>> terms of this Agreement, Intel grants to you a nonexclusive,
>>> nontransferable, worldwide, fully paid-up license under Intel's
>>> copyrights to: (i) copy the Software internally for your own development
>>> and maintenance purposes; (ii) copy and distribute the Software to your
>>> end-users, but only under a license agreement with terms at least as
>>> restrictive as those contained in Intel's Final, Single User License
>>> Agreement, attached as Exhibit A; and (iii) modify, copy and distribute
>>> the end-user documentation which may accompany the Software, but only in
>>> association with the Software.
>>>
>>> but it's still nonfree. i guess adding it to the repositories would
>>> require the same exemption linux-firmware does.
>>>
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git/
>>> (read the various LICENSE.* files in there)
>>
>> I think it would be better if Intel just submitted it to linux-firmware
>> instead.
> "just" is certainly doing a lot of heavy lifting there. i wouldn't mind
> perhaps sending an email somewhere, but i don't really know where to
> even start aside from generic-corporate-support-address or
> very-specific-personal-email-to-intel-linux-engineer-via-lkml (bad). i
> doubt they'd do it anyway, but it's worth a try if there's a non-generic
> point of contact you can point me to.

I will see what I can dig up through various channels.  I think that it 
should not be a problem to get Intel to submit their firmware through that 
channel.

An alternative is that we include it in linux-firmware ourselves, but I 
don't necessarily like the idea of opening that pandora's box.

Ariadne