Re: Creating GSM Users Association (GSMUA)

[Serg l]

I took a really quick look into the files and found a whole bunch of .lib
and .o files. This seems to be similar to those OEM packages provided by
MTK, it exposes control interfaces and customization tools, but the
essential part is pre-compiled in form of libraries and object files, which
are combined in the correct order based on the SoC variant. IMHO

Based on the articles down the links, qcom firmware "sources" are not very
rare and floating on the Internet, so it would be interesting to see some
more samples.

Still worth to take another look...Some day...

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Mychaela Falconia <
mychaela.falco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> thayyil09 yil  wrote:
>
> > michela are you kidding ( dont worrry iam a kid at twentees)
>
> Kidding about what?
>
> > calypso bb starts from leaked Docs ( if not sorry )
>
> I don't know what you mean by "calypso bb", but OsmocomBB started from
> not only leaked docs, but also leaked *source code* for TI's original
> firmware for the chipset in question.  Even though OsmocomBB people
> have chosen (for license worship reasons) not to make any direct reuse
> of TI's original code beyond a couple of L1 header files, they have
> extensively studied those TI firmware source leaks in order to gain
> the knowledge of how to operate the Calypso hardware and how to
> command the Calypso's DSP ROM to perform the functions it needs to
> perform for GSM functionality.  See here for more juicy details
> regarding those two OsmocomBB L1 header files I just mentioned:
>
> https://www.freecalypso.org/pipermail/community/2017-April/000361.html
>
> > so why qcom code leak is ugly
>
> Where did I say that it is ugly?  I have not yet had a chance to look
> at that QC code you keep talking about - I only downloaded it earlier
> today and don't have time currently to look at it in any depth, thus I
> am not qualified to judge whether it is ugly or beautiful or somewhere
> in between.
>
> > osmocom is for open softwear  not for any specific hardware
>
> I am not a member of Osmocom, instead I lead my own project
> (FreeCalypso) in the same general space, hence the arguments regarding
> what Osmocom is or is not have no direct applicability to me or to my
> non-Osmocom project.
>
> > keeping updated with mainstream hardware is the way
>
> There is no such thing as "the way"; it may be YOUR way, but it is not
> *my* way.
>
> > its happy to know your the mother of freecalypso.
> > in softwear world you maybe first mom :)
>
> Well, some of us (me included) subscribe to the view that our poor
> planet is *way* overpopulated, hence engaging in biological procreation
> (imposing more living and resource-consuming humans on the poor planet)
> is akin to a crime.  As a result, those of us with maternal instincts
> have to find a different outlet for those instincts, such as becoming
> the mother of a FLOSS project. :)
>
> Also leaders of FLOSS projects commonly take on titles such as
> principal developer, maintainer or even BDFL - but I prefer Mother. :)
>
> > and i here for osmocom on qcom  == osmodroidbb.wordpress.com
>
> I assume you are talking about the QC source leak described on this page:
>
> http://syshwid.blogspot.in/2016/10/build-qualcomm-modem-msm8626.html
>
> (yes, I can read Russian just fine, it's one of my native languages)
>
> When you first posted about it back in April, I went to that page and
> the https://drop.me/B439WM mirror it talks about was down - appeared
> to have been taken down.  But when I tried it again earlier today
> while in the process of composing this response to you, it worked, so
> I was finally able to download this QC source you've been talking
> about.
>
> However, even if this leak is 100% real source and not a semi-src (the
> Russian hacker says he was able to make a complete build from this
> source, but it doesn't mean that everything is really rebuilt from
> source - there could be major important pieces that are in the form of
> linkable binary objects, and it would take a lot of work to analyze
> the source to see which is the case), I have my doubts that this
> MSM8x26 platform would make a good replacement for FreeCalypso.  I see
> the following (potential) problems:
>
> * According to the marketing info that I could easily find for this
>   chip(set), it seems to be CDMA/3GPP2-oriented, which is not what I
>   am interested in.  That marketing info seems to imply that the chip
>   supports UMTS/WCDMA too, but says nothing about GSM support.  I
>   principally refuse to use any chip, chipset or device that does not
>   support GSM, i.e., I am potentially interested in having support for
>   UMTS/WCDMA and maybe even LTE *in addition* to GSM/2G, but never
>   instead of.  Furthermore, one of my absolute requirements is to be
>   able to invert the preference order for network search, i.e., have
>   the modem always preferentially choose GSM/2G networks if such
>   service is available, fall back to 3G/UMTS only if 

Re: Creating GSM Users Association (GSMUA)

[Mychaela Falconia]

Hi Harald,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my GSMUA idea.  I agree
with you that representing the interests of users at GSMA/ETSI/3GPP
would a task beyond our means, but I still see social value in
creating our own totally informal group purely for mutual support and
camaraderie.  Throughout human history members of various oppressed
minorities have banded together for mutual support, even if that
support is purely emotional and nothing more, and I am currently
experiencing an unmet need for such a group with regard to GSM/2G.

> Regarding your proposal: It seems like a contradiction in terms to me if
> you establish something called an 'user association' while your interest
> is (at least partially) to represent "boutique manufacturers" regarding
> IMEI allocations.

My idea of a recycled IMEI registry was just one potential application
for GSMUA, and the overall idea of GSMUA still appeals to me even if
we don't pursue the recycled IMEI registry idea.  As for representing
boutique manufacturers of end user devices in a user association
alongside with actual end users, I don't see much of a contradiction,
as the interests of the two are expected to coincide.  Boutique
manufacturers are fundamentally different from mainstream ones: while
mainstream manufs act as users' enemies for all practical purposes
(they prefer to serve the interests of carriers and/or governments
instead, and their entire "security" model sees the user as the enemy),
boutique manufs exist for no purpose except to serve the interests of
underrepresented end users, and given that FLOSS development typically
proceeds by scratching one's own itch, a real-life boutique manuf of
GSM devices will almost certainly make those devices for his or her
own personal use first and foremost, and then offer them for sale in
extremely small volume to others of a like mind.

In my original proposal I outlined the following list of parties whom
I see as the target audience for my proposed GSMUA:

* Empowered end users;
* Small boutique manufacturers for devices for said empowered end users;
* Small community and other non-mainstream network operators, i.e.,
  those who operate networks for the empowered end users and their
  FLOSS devices to connect to.

A key goal of GSMUA is to be a truly neutral meeting ground where all
of the above can come together, with everyone being equally welcome
regardless of specific project affiliation, if any.  The closest thing
that exists so far where all kinds of different people with an interest
in cellular telephony can come together are your OsmoCon and OsmoDevCon
get-togethers, but those are limited to projects that fall under the
Osmocom umbrella, and do not include non-Osmocom projects in the same
general space.  My vision for GSMUA is to be more inclusive and more
neutral, a place where people from Osmocom, FreeCalypso, OpenBTS,
YateBTS and others (as well as just persons who are simply interested
in the general subject matter, but not affiliated or involved with any
specific project) can come together (at least online if not physically)
without any of them being in a dominant position.

The very fact that this discussion we are having right now has to be
cross-posted to 3 different mailing lists is an indication of the
problem which my GSMUA proposal is meant to solve: there presently
exists no truly neutral, truly general community mailing list where
*everyone* with an interest in non-big-bucks GSM and other cellular
networks can interact with others in the same field, regardless of
whether their specific interest is in running their own network,
making their own end user phones, or just using one or both of those
as a highly intelligent, highly empowered end user, and without being
specific to any one particular project.

One specific reason why I feel there is a need for people on the
empowered-end-user mobile device side to meet with people on the
network infrastructure and network operations side is the imminent
threat of GSM/2G shutdown by the uncaring major network operators.
There exist people in the world, myself included, for whom life
without GSM/2G would be absolutely intolerable, as GSM/2G is the only
cellular technology for which there exist practically usable FLOSS
implementations on the MS/UE side.  In both USA and Canada there is
only one GSM/2G operator left, and if T-Mobile USA and Rogers
completely shut down their GSM/2G networks in another year or two, and
reallocate every last 200 kHz channel in both 1900 and 850 MHz bands
to their stinking 3G/4G/whatever services so no one else can set up
replacement community networks, users of Calypso phones will be
completely screwed.

This is where people in the OpenBTS/OpenBSC/etc projects can come to
the rescue.  As I understand it, there are both commercial and
community operators who run their own GSM/2G networks using BTS
hardware and software built and maintained by the Osmocom/OpenBTS/etc
community, and because of the imminent 

Re: Creating GSM Users Association (GSMUA)

[Mychaela Falconia]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org>
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 10:14:07 +0200
Subject: Re: Creating GSM Users Association (GSMUA)
To: Mychaela Falconia <mychaela.falco...@gmail.com>
Cc: List for FreeCalypso community discussion
<community@freecalypso.org>, baseband-devel
<baseband-de...@lists.osmocom.org>, open...@lists.osmocom.org

Hi Mychaela,

sorry for the late response.

I think there is a legitimate need (for decades!) to represent the
users at entities like GSMA or (much more importantly) the 3GPP and
ETSI.  3GPP (and lesser extent ETSI) is where the relevant specifiations
are written.

Such an user representation would have a role to
* identify where (new) specifications infringe on users rights
* make sure the industry at least hears about what's in the best
  interest of users before they discard all of that and implement
  whatever they want anyway
* Raise public awareness about new proposals for specifications that are
  particularly problematic from a user point of view, therby assert
  pressure on the standardizations body before it is too late (spec
  finalied).

The areas that I can think of are mostly related to privacy, data
protection, and general "digital rights".

However, doing the above is fundamentally a lobbying organization, and
requires significant funding, starting from membership fees to the
relevant standard bodies, to paying for all the related travel expenses
to attend the relevant meetings, and people with lots of time on their
hands to read the respective draft standards, etc.

I think it would be great to do something here, but I think we as the
"super technical, ultra nerdy" people working on Free Software (and
harwere) in the telecom sphere are typically not in posession of the
right skillset to do so.  It's much more about social skills than about
technical skills.

Regarding your proposal: It seems like a contradiction in terms to me if
you establish something called an 'user association' while your interest
is (at least partially) to represent "boutique manufacturers" regarding
IMEI allocations.  That's not really of the interest of a *user*.  I
think the least concern of a user is how and where a manufacturer gets
his IMEI allocated.  Yes, I agree there is something that can be done
regarding TAC allocation (like IEEE OUI / MAC address allocation or USB
vid/pid allocation).  But that's not a topic for users.

Regards,
Harald
-- 
- Harald Welte <lafo...@gnumonks.org>   http://laforge.gnumonks.org/

"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
  (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
___
Community mailing list
Community@freecalypso.org
https://www.freecalypso.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Creating GSM Users Association (GSMUA)

[Mychaela Falconia]

Serg wrote:

> You brought up a tricky subject and I definitely would be interested to
> hear some feedback from someone who dealt with various government bodies in
> different countries.

Who dealt with various government bodies?  Why do we need to deal with
them at all?  I do not seek any kind of governmental approval for our
work, and I am perfectly happy with selling our hardware products as
black market goods similar to alternative medicines such as cocaine
and heroin.

But I do wish to ship our GSM MS products including development boards
with individual-per-unit factory-assigned IMEIs, world-unique to the
best of our ability and standing a good chance of being accepted as
valid by major GSM networks.  Of course every user's undeniable ability
to set her own IMEI is a key feature of FreeCalypso GSM MS offerings,
thus if the IMEIs we assign at the factory end up not being accepted
as valid by some network our users wish to use, those users can simply
change the IMEI to their own (whatever their target network will
swallow), but I still wish to ship our devices from the factory with
IMEI assignments as good and as close to legitimate as we are able,
hence my idea of a Recycled IMEI Registry to provide psychological
legitimization (psychological, not legal/governmental!) of our
squatting on an unused/wasted subrange of the IMEI range originally
assigned to the Pirelli DP-L10.

IOW, I just want to include a statement in the FCDEV3B product
description to the effect of "every unit is shipped from the factory
with a unique IMEI, numbered from a range obtained from GSMUA Recycled
IMEI Registry". :-)

> Website hosting is the easy part :)

Of course it is, but I offered to point the DNS to a server run by
someone from the Osmocom camp as a measure of neutrality, to make
GSMUA more of a neutral soil rather than purely Falconian soil like
FreeCalypso. :)  If I own the domain name but they control the hosting
server, neither side can easily cut the other out of the loop
unilaterally.  But if they do not wish to accept the olive branch,
we'll set up gsmua.org all on our own, and will always keep it
sufficiently separate from FreeCalypso so that non-FC people would be
welcome to join GSMUA if they are interested.

M~
___
Community mailing list
Community@freecalypso.org
https://www.freecalypso.org/mailman/listinfo/community

Re: Creating GSM Users Association (GSMUA)

[Serg l]

Hi Mychaela,

You brought up a tricky subject and I definitely would be interested to
hear some feedback from someone who dealt with various government bodies in
different countries.

Website hosting is the easy part :)

Thanks,
-Serg

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Mychaela Falconia <
mychaela.falco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello FreeCalypso and Osmocom communities,
>
> I am in the process of creating an informal organisation representing
> the interests of those members of the GSM universe whose interests are
> not represented by GSMA etc, and I am inviting you to join me in this
> venture.  I propose that we name our informal organisation GSMUA,
> standing for GSM Users Association, and my vision for this GSMUA is to
> be a counter-body (antibody?) to the official GSMA.  I just registered
> the gsmua.org domain name, but there is no website or mailing list set
> up yet.  If someone from the Osmocom camp would like to host the
> server infrastructure for gsmua.org, I will happily point the DNS to
> you, otherwise the FreeCalypso family can host it on our server.
>
> My vision for GSMUA is to represent the interests of GSM end users
> (empowered end users who wish to fully own and control all aspects of
> their user equipment while operating on public mobile networks in a
> fully spec-compliant manner), small boutique manufacturers of GSM
> devices (both MS/user equipment and network infrastructure), small
> community network operators and others whose interests are not
> represented by GSMA etc, especially in cases where our interests are
> in direct conflict with the interests of big players such as giant
> device manufacturers, giant commercial network operators and
> governments.
>
> A key goal of GSMUA is to be project-neutral, that is, every person
> and every small company belonging to any of the categories listed
> above (empowered end user, small boutique device manufacturer, small
> community network operator etc) should be fully welcome regardless of
> which specific project they are associated with.  As of today there
> are at least two different projects offering GSM MS implementations
> (OsmocomBB and FreeCalypso) and at least two different projects
> offering network-side GSM implementations (Osmocom and OpenBTS), and I
> hope that this number of available alternatives will continue to grow:
> freedom of choice is always a good thing.  But at the present time
> there exists no neutral soil on which members of different projects
> with a common interest (GSM networks and devices serving the interests
> of end users rather than big corporations and governments) and a
> common enemy (just named) can meet, and this lack of neutral meeting
> ground is the problem which GSMUA is meant to solve.
>
> I also have one practical application for GSMUA in mind already: to
> manage and legitimize recycling of wasted IMEI number ranges.  By the
> official rules of GSMA etc each different *type* of GSM mobile
> equipment requires a different TAC, i.e., a range of at least 1 million
> IMEI numbers.  So if a small boutique GSM device manufacturer makes a
> boutique MS device of which no more than 100 units will ever be made,
> 00 IMEI numbers have to be wasted by the official rules.  While I
> don't know of any manufacturer who got a range of 1 million IMEIs and
> only made 100 devices, we do have examples like Openmoko GTA01/02 and
> Pirelli DP-L10.  In the case of Openmoko GTA02 I've been told that
> about 15 thousand units were made in total; in the case of Pirelli
> DP-L10 it appears that the total number produced was somewhere under
> 100 thousand.  In each case a full range of 1 million IMEIs was
> allocated, and at least 900 thousand numbers out of each range are
> currently unused and wasted.
>
> If a small boutique manufacturer wishes to offer a boutique GSM MS
> product to the general public and wishes to ship each unit with a
> world-unique IMEI that stands a good chance of being accepted as valid
> by common GSM networks, and the product in question does not qualify
> for IMEI allocation by the official rules (e.g., the product is a
> development board specifically intended for users to run their own
> firmware and connect to live public networks with it, taking full
> personal responsibility for their actions) - the situation I found
> myself in with my GSM MS development board - I feel that the small
> boutique manuf in question should be empowered to squat on a small
> subrange of someone else's IMEI range if it is known beyond reasonable
> doubt to be wasted and unused.
>
> However, this recycling of wasted IMEI number ranges could be better
> organized and given at least some aura of semi-legitimacy if there
> were a community body set up to manage it, and this is where my
> proposed GSMUA can come in.  Once we get our GSMUA up and running and
> assign a group of volunteers to be IMEI recycling managers, any small
> GSM or 3G+ device manufacturer who needs a small range of IMEI numbers