Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 15:34:01 -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: <CNOH9O1DWNVX.37UPC3Q0KL05E@sumire>
Message-ID: <8a60ec67-6fe-c8ab-8c11-45423a5a02e@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> <7eddf22-613c-7d48-9a78-12609bb8712@dereferenced.org> <CNOH9O1DWNVX.37UPC3Q0KL05E@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 10:20 PM CEST, Ariadne Conill wrote:
>> 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.
> sounds good. hopefully they do :)
>
>> 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.
> yeah, me neither. though it's an opened one, i think, as it's what
> debian does. maybe they were lax here, or maybe they researched it a
> bunch somewhere i haven't looked for:
> https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/firmware-ipw2x00
>
> the .orig is the original firmware, and the .debian addition (verified
> via the source packages) contains a few custom extras, this package
> being one of them.

Debian choosing to do it that way does not mean that we are also committed 
to doing the same way, of course.

My concern about going that way is that we probably need to have strict 
licensing requirements for any firmware we add there, otherwise everyone 
will want firmware added there, even if we do not actually have permission 
to redistribute it.

Ariadne