Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:27:35 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: [...] > Remember, the airwaves are a public resource. While I agree with you > that you should have the right to do with your equipment as you see > fit in general, this conflict with my rights to enjoy a public > resource and to use equipment I purchased legally. Since it is illegal > to boost the power on these devices (or even use a higher-gain > antenna), I think it's fully reasonable for the FCC to say something > that is basically "You can't put a switch on there between legal and > illegal". Let me (try to) clarify my take on this issue. I agree that electromagnetic wave frequencies are a public limited resource and that some regulations are needed to prevent people from monopolizing them or interfere in a bad way with other resonably shielded devices (electromagnetic compatibility). That's why the law should say "you must not exceed these limits" and this should hold for end-users and device producers, as well. But the law should *not* say "you must not produce a device that can be modified in order to exceed these limits". Firstoff, any device could be modified (more or less easily) so that it eventually exceed regulatory limits: what the heck! I could always reverse engineer the hardware specs and write a brand-new firmware from scratch! It can be really hard to do, but it's not impossible! Moreover, it's not that there's the "exceed limits button": modifying a DFSG-free firmware qualifies as modifying the device behaviour. It should be seen as something that the user is permitted to do: he/she may fix bugs and improve the firmware without exceeding any regulatory limits. If instead he/she does exceed the limits, well, he/she is breaking the law and should be fined for that; I mean, for exceeding the limits, not for modifying the firmware! -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpR14yHgODyj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
Francesco Poli wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:34:32 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > > >> Francesco Poli wrote: >> > [...] > >>> "We would really love to be more permissive, but we cannot, 'cause >>> that other evil guy forbids us." >>> >>> As I keep reading answers like this, I'm less and less convinced of >>> their good faith... >>> > [...] > >> For some companies I would agree, but as has been said, intel has been >> opensourcing a lot lately, >> > > And is getting good publicity for this: as a consequence, I think they > should act likewise on other fronts... > > [...] > >> For a lot of wifi cards (dunno about Intel's) it's regulatory - they >> can't sell cards that can be easily modified to exceed FCC limits, so >> they limit it in a binary firmware. If they gave away the source, >> people could easily modify the card to exceed the legal output power, >> and thus they can't give away source. >> > > This sounds like another cheap excuse: I cannot believe that the law > really says that *Intel* is responsible if *I* modify an Intel WiFi card > so that it exceeds regulatory limits... If there indeed is a law like > this in some jurisdiction, well, the law should be changed ASAP. > > Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if *I* > modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen as the > *sole* responsible. > > > Rules for transmitting devices certified under FCC part 15: FCC Rules, Part 15 section 15(b): "(b) Except as follows, an intentional or unintentional radiator must be constructed such that the adjustments of any control that is readily accessible by or intended to be accessible to the user will not cause operation of the device in violation of the regulations. [...]" A firmware setting in an open-source firmware would be considered to be "readily accessible". Some other points to consider: Section 202: "[...] Master devices marketed within the United States must be limited to operation on permissible Part 15 frequencies. Client devices that can also act as master devices must meet the requirements of a master device. For the purposes of this section, a master device is defined as a device operating in a mode in which it has the capability to transmit without receiving an enabling signal. [...]" Which limits frequencies, but it's similar Section 203 specifically forbids allowing the user to change antennas (by saying it should be permanently attached or use a non-standard connector. This is for the same reasons. 204(a) says that "[...] no person shall use, manufacture, sell or lease, offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or leasing, any external radio frequency power amplifier or amplifier kit intended for use with a Part 15 intentional radiator." I would think a firmware that boosts power beyond the part 15 limits would count as an amplifier kit, but I could be wrong. - Now, the reason why this is good: Imagine if someone could boost the power of their device at the click of a button. You'd get better performance, so anyone who is aware of it is likely to do it. (The likelihood of being caught is extremely low). So what happens? a.) Anyone who isn't using boosted wifi power is likely to lose the ability to use wifi as their signals are drowned out b.) The same happens for other part 15 devices on nearby frequencies (cordless phones, wireless mice, etc, etc) c.) The likelihood of exceeding RF radiation safty limits is increased, both for users and for people nearby. Remember, the airwaves are a public resource. While I agree with you that you should have the right to do with your equipment as you see fit in general, this conflict with my rights to enjoy a public resource and to use equipment I purchased legally. Since it is illegal to boost the power on these devices (or even use a higher-gain antenna), I think it's fully reasonable for the FCC to say something that is basically "You can't put a switch on there between legal and illegal". HTH, Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
On 3/10/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: That is my point: if they want to forbid some possible modifications (just because those modifications would break some law) by retaining source code and/or by license restrictions, they have a non-free goal! The only reasonable justification I can think of is "we would be considered responsible if you made those modifications", but that justification would mean that the law is ill-conceived and should be changed ASAP, as I stated. Yes, I think they probably do have a non-free goal in keeping the source code; however while there are legit uses for source I think they would assume a lot of people would do illegal modifications. Anyway this isn't sufficient justification - petition Intel like crazy and maybe they will release the source :) People can modify their Wifi equipment to go over the legal limits pretty easily anyway... -- Andrew Donnellan ajdlinuxATgmailDOTcom (primary)ajdlinuxATexemailDOTcomDOTau (secure) http://andrewdonnellan.com http://ajdlinux.wordpress.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58 http://linux.org.auhttp://debian.org Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484 Spammers only === [EMAIL PROTECTED] === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RFC]: firmware-ipw2200, acceptable for non-free?
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 18:08:28 +1100 Andrew Donnellan wrote: > On 3/9/07, Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if > > *I* modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen > > as the *sole* responsible. > > While I agree that this isn't an excuse for not freeing it, it's *NOT* > whether Intel is responsible, it's that they don't want you doing it > anyway. That is my point: if they want to forbid some possible modifications (just because those modifications would break some law) by retaining source code and/or by license restrictions, they have a non-free goal! The only reasonable justification I can think of is "we would be considered responsible if you made those modifications", but that justification would mean that the law is ill-conceived and should be changed ASAP, as I stated. > > ie. A crowbar can be used to break in to a house. I can give you one > and not be responsible if you break into a house, but maybe I don't > want you to anyway, so I won't give you one. What if I need the crowbar for legitimate uses (maybe I locked myself out of my own garage door...)? Denying me the crowbar would forbid me those legitimate uses too. Hope this clarifies what I mean. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpdpT0NuS0SJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 13:41:35 +0100, Ismael Valladolid Torres wrote: > Julien Cristau escribe: > > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free > > Why exactly!? See http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary (this is about 2.0, but I think the same problems apply to 2.5). Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
Julien Cristau escribe: > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free Why exactly!? pgpQT25CqkVgT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG
On Fri, Mar 9, 2007 at 08:34:30 +0100, Mathieu Stumpf wrote: > Great, there are 996 songs under CC-by (2.0+2.5) if I just look at > dogmazic.net. > CC-* before 3.0 are non-free, CC-by 3.0 is probably ok, IIRC. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
