MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2022 22:24:05 +0200
Message-Id: <CNOH9O1DWNVX.37UPC3Q0KL05E@sumire>
Cc: "Riccardo Mottola" <riccardo.mottola@libero.it>, "Winston Weinert"
 <winston@ml1.net>, <~alpine/users@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: ipw2100 wifi card firmware
From: "alice" <alice@ayaya.dev>
To: "Ariadne Conill" <ariadne@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>
In-Reply-To: <7eddf22-613c-7d48-9a78-12609bb8712@dereferenced.org>

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, m=
y
> >>>> 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 al=
l
> >>>> 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 anyth=
ing
> >>> 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" distr=
os
> >>> 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 the=
re.
> >>>
> >>> 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:
> >>> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D
> >>>
> >>> 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 th=
e
> >>> 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 developm=
ent
> >>> and maintenance purposes; (ii) copy and distribute the Software to yo=
ur
> >>> 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 distribu=
te
> >>> 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-firmwa=
re.git/
> >>> (read the various LICENSE.* files in there)
> >>
> >> I think it would be better if Intel just submitted it to linux-firmwar=
e
> >> 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-generi=
c
> > point of contact you can point me to.
>
> I will see what I can dig up through various channels.  I think that it=
=20
> should not be a problem to get Intel to submit their firmware through tha=
t=20
> channel.
sounds good. hopefully they do :)

> An alternative is that we include it in linux-firmware ourselves, but I=
=20
> 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.

>
> Ariadne