Intel Wireless Restrictions: ipw2100, ipw2200 are not Free

[Troy James Sobotka]

The Intel series of wireless adapters requires the usage of a binary blob firmware. In particular, consistent across all of the binary blob firmware files is the following clause:

"Do not use or load this firmware (the "Software") until you have carefully read the following terms and conditions. By loading or using the Software, you agree to the terms of this Agreement. If you do not wish to so agree, do not install or use the Software."

As such, the EULA is not presented to the user. According to the web page, one must accept the EULA before using the binary blob firmware.

Should this not be treated as a 'restricted' driver? Nvidia's driver also requires the binary blob approach and is listed as a 'restricted driver' as it too requires an accepting of a EULA.

EULA locations for the relevant firmware blobs:
EULA for ipw2100: http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=4
EULA for ipw2200: http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7

The 3945 has a binary microcode blob that has a license as well, but doesn't seem as crippling:

http://bughost.org/ipw3945/LICENSE

[Troy James Sobotka (troy-sobotka)]

Any progress on this? Seems to me that it belongs in restricted and should be tagged as such.

[Troy James Sobotka (troy-sobotka)]

06/06/08: Changed to reflect proper package.

[Leann Ogasawara (leannogasawara)]

I'm reassigning this to the "linux-firmware" package.

[Troy James Sobotka (troy-sobotka)]

This is a rather serious legal foobar. No progress on this bug report has unfortunately pushed me to ask for an update.

Has there been any progress? Does anyone care?

The evidence is extremely clear in this case and someone should at least flag a EULA trip in the package.

It's problematic legally, and this is something everyone should be extremely mindful of.

[Leann Ogasawara (leannogasawara)]

Hi Troy,

There's been discussions regarding this on the Ubuntu kernel team mailing list. It should be getting resolved.

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2009-January/003994.html

[Sergio Zanchetta (primes2h)]

The 18 month support period for Gutsy Gibbon 7.10 has reached its end of life -
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-7.10-eol . As a result, we are closing the
linux-ubuntu-modules-2.6.22 task. It would be helpful if you could test the
new Jaunty Jackalope 9.04 release and confirm if this issue remains -
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904overview. If the issue still exists with the Jaunty
release, please update this report by changing the Status of the "linux (Ubuntu)"
task from "Incomplete" to "New". Thanks in advance.

[Dara Adib (daradib)]

Invalidating the linux bug task because the blob firmware is contained separately in the linux-firmware package for Ubuntu 8.10 and later (including 9.04 and Karmic).

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:37:11 -0000
Dara Adib <email address hidden> wrote:

> Invalidating the linux bug task because the blob firmware is contained
> separately in the linux-firmware package for Ubuntu 8.10 and later
> (including 9.04 and Karmic).
>
> ** Changed in: linux (Ubuntu)
> Status: Incomplete => Invalid
>

Its only invalid if linux-firmware is in restricted. Is that the case?
kk

[Dara Adib (daradib)]

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my explanation. Only the linux bug task is invalid, because this bug affects linux-firmware and not linux the kernel (which does not contain the binary firmware). The linux-firmware bug task is status "Triaged"; this bug is not closed as linux-firmware is still in main.

[Dara Adib (daradib)]

This bug highlights a problem with the Ubuntu main licensing terms that should be addressed.

The Ubuntu license policy[1] states:

All application software included in the Ubuntu main component:
Must include source code. The main component has a strict and non-negotiable requirement that application software included in it must come with full source code.
Must allow modification and distribution of modified copies under the same license. Just having the source code does not convey the same freedom as having the right to change it. Without the ability to modify software, the Ubuntu community cannot support software, fix bugs, translate it, or improve it.

However, the Ubuntu component description[2] makes an exception, stating: "The licences for software applications in main must be free, but main may also may contain binary firmware and selected fonts that cannot be modified without permission from their authors. In all cases redistribution is unencumbered."

This is problematic for the free software install option on Ubuntu (which installs only main and universe packages), as well as free derivatives of Ubuntu like gNewSense.

[1] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/licensing
[2] http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

On Thu, 07 May 2009 00:05:16 -0000
Dara Adib <email address hidden> wrote:

> Sorry, I should have been more clear in my explanation. Only the linux
> bug task is invalid, because this bug affects linux-firmware and not
> linux the kernel (which does not contain the binary firmware). The
> linux-firmware bug task is status "Triaged"; this bug is not closed as
> linux-firmware is still in main.
>

Thanks for the clarification.
kk

[Jeremy Foshee (jeremyfoshee)]

Setting Fix Released as Intel changed their licensing.

-JFo

[KarlGoetz (kgoetz)]

Hi Jeremy,
Is there a reference for the licence change? I'd be interested to read about it.

[Stefan Nagy (stefan-nagy)]

I don't really get it...

1. On the kernel-team mailing list Yingying Zhao from Intel writes on Jan 05 2009 "We need to release the EULA together with the binary firmware in Ubuntu images to resolve this legal issue. Packaging the license files for ipw* and iwl* firmware in the "linux-firmware" is a proper solution." (https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kernel-team/2009-January/003996.html) - And that's what happend.

2. In February Jeremy Foshee writes that Intel changed their licensing (see comment #12).

3. The firmware terms and conditions (http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7) aswell as the 'Firmware Licence FAQ' (http://ipw2100.sourceforge.net/firmware_faq.php) - which were last updated on Jun 09 2010 - state something completely different. As I understand it the licence never changed.

Can please someone clearify this? Is this bug fixed?

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

[Expired for linux-firmware (Ubuntu) because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

[Troy James Sobotka (troy-sobotka)]

Oh and look. The bug expires.

From 2008 people.

As of Stefan Nagy's comment (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware/+bug/179139/comments/14) we see that there is still a potential discrepancy or confusion.

This is still likely a violation of terms. This could be even illegal in some countries if, in fact, the case of the EULA is being avoided or the license issue is as it appears to be. See Mr. Nagy's links for further information.

So can we treat this as the intelligent folks involved with Free Software would be expected to?

Licenses form the backbone of much of what Ubuntu builds upon. Ignoring them or apathy likely isn't pushing things forwards.

[Stefan Nagy (stefan-nagy)]

I think that the status 'Incomplete' (set by KarlGoetz) wasn't correct - there was no need for more information from the reporter. The status 'Fix Released' (set by Jemery Foshee) wasn't correct either since the problem still continues to exist (see my comment #14).

Since I'm confident that this report should be looked at by a developer and has enough information (see https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Status) someone should set it back to 'Triaged'. Since I can't do that I'll set it to 'Confirmed' for now.

[Fred (eldmannen+launchpad)]

Shouldn't these above mentioned firmware be moved to the linux-firmware-nonfree package?

[Tim Gardner (timg-tpi)]

All ipw2x00 and iwlwifi firmware files now have appropriate licensing. See the upstream repository at git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/linux-firmware.git

[Sam Geeraerts (samgee)]

It may be so that adding the license information is sufficient to comply with the requirement to agree with it. But the licenses of these firmware files are still nonfree. Why aren't they moved to restricted/multiverse?

[David Ayers (ayers)]

I just dowloaded linux-firmware from kernel.org. The license clearly states:
Copyright (c) 2006-2012, Intel Corporation.
All rights reserved.

Redistribution. Redistribution and use in binary form, without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are
met:
...

This firmware really should be moved to linux-firmware-nonfree which is part of multiverse.
If it is significant enough that it should be available in restricted then a linux-firmware-restricted package in restricted should be considered. But many of us rely on only Free Software/OSI Certified Licensed/DSFG free software in main.

Indeed a bug may have been fixed in the sense that the the obligations of license are now met. But this bug is about having this software in the correct package.

Are there any objections in reopening this issue for both linux-firmware and linux-firmware-nonfree?

[Tim Gardner (timg-tpi)]

Its been awhile, but IIRC our legal counsel ruled that it was sufficient for firmware files to be freely redistributable and that the license be distributed with the package per Debian policy.

This bug was originally about getting Intel to change the conditions of the ipw2x00 EULA such that it met the criteria neccesary for inclusion in the linux-firmware package. I believe it now does. So, no, I'm not really interested in reopening this bug.

[Troy James Sobotka (troy-sobotka)]

Actually, I don't believe I ever requested that Intel change their license.

I merely was suggesting that A) it was in the wrong package, and B) that in order to abide by the license the individual be presented with a popup.

Of course, while the new license might be sufficient, it is clearly outlined in http://intellinuxwireless.org/?n=faq&s=license that the older license for which this report pertains, is still in effect for both of the drivers.

<QUOTE>
A. The important point is to make sure that the end user is notified that the firmware component is governed by an Intel license and provided with a copy of the license terms prior to downloading or using the software.
</QUOTE>

There is also mention that a header license agreement could cover their distribution.

While I have long since moved on from this, I suspect that the statement "All ipw2x00 and iwlwifi firmware files now have appropriate licensing." is actually incorrect as outlined in the link:

<QUOTE>
Q. The license for the binaries needed with the newer projects (ipw3945 and iwlwifi) seems much cleaner than the license for the ipw2100 and ipw2200. Can you change the terms of the older license?

[ ipw2100 and ipw2200 specific ]

A. Unfortunately, no. Those binaries contain intellectual property licensed from third parties, and Intel must follow certain contractual obligations in licensing for those components. The ipw3945 and iwlwifi related binaries are all Intel-developed, and we are able to use a simplified license for that product.
</QUOTE>

[David Ayers (ayers)]

Tim, the fact that the firmware was distributed without the necessary notices at the time, was a real issue and that has indeed been resolved. With the new licensing Debian, Ubuntu and others are in compliance with respect to the obligations to the copyright holders. The fact that the firmware was originally distributed without the proper notices should have probably been tracked in a different report. Yet that's not the issue this bug report is about.

Both Debian and Ubuntu provide separate repositories for proprietary software as a service to their users, some of whom value using free software systems and others that just enjoy the distribution. This bug report is about the service of providing this distinction, not the legal obligation that has indeed been resolved. That is why a say the original issue being addressed by this report hasn't been resolved.

Please consider reopening this report so that the firmware will be placed in the correct package... be it in restricted or multiverse.

[Tim Gardner (timg-tpi)]

The Ubuntu linux-firmware package is based on the upstream repository mentioned in comment #19. Perhaps you should try convincing Ben Hutchings or David Woodhouse of your position. I've little interest in pursuing this.

[David Ayers (ayers)]

I'm glad to accept that you have no personal interest in pursuing this. That's fine since AFAIU you are not the sole maintainer of the linux-firmware package. Yet I do hope that maybe someone else from the Ubuntu kernel-team may find interest in this.

Debian already splits all non-free firmware into seperate packages. They then provide
http://packages.debian.org/de/sid/firmware-linux-nonfree
depending on all these separate packages, yet which also depends on the DSFG compliant firmware, which is combined in
http://packages.debian.org/de/sid/firmware-linux-free

What this report is asking for, is for Ubuntu to do the something similar. I (and possibly others) assumed that the Ubuntu split of linux-firmware and linux-firmware-nonfree would mirror this. But I suppose that doesn't seem to be the case. Yet I would expect it would be easy for Ubuntu as a Debian derivative to build on the current Debian infrastructure.

Fedora has explicitly exempted proprietary Firmware from the thier Free and Open Source Software policy.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items so it may be that from the large distribution, Debian may be the only one insuring that proprietary firmware is not included in their main repository.

But indeed, if, as you suggest, this split were already done upstream and upstream would provide seperate source packages, it would make it a lot easier for any distribution to offer their users a free operating system.

I doubt that asking any specific existing maintainer to do this extra work will be helpful. But if we could get someone (either from Debian, from libre-kernel contributors or the many Debian/Ubuntu derivatives which try to provide a Free Software distribution) to help Ben Hutschings and David Woodhouse provide seperate upstream packages (or host support to split the firmware for packaging), they may find it acceptable and helpful for this group of users, who value free operating systems.

Yet the fact remains this report is about this missing split in Ubuntu. So please do not interpret it as a critique of your work (which is very much appreciated!) if I reopen this report. It is merely an articulation of Ubuntu users' (and in my case canonical customers') request for providing a free operating system.

Thank you for your time!

[era (era)]

So in other words this is a bug in Unity Linux (which as per https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux-firmware is the upstream for the Ubuntu linux-firmware-free package) for including a non-free driver; and in Ubuntu's own linux-firmware-nonfree package for not including the driver. A reasonable first step towards resolving this would appear to be to approach the Unity upstream maintainers about removing the non-free package; then it should be trivial for linux-firmware-nonfree to pick it up.

However, I am not authorized to reopen the bug for linux-firmware-free. Could somebody please step in? Thanks in advance.

[David Ayers (ayers)]

Hello Era,

AFAIU Unity https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity is more of a desktop environment and has nothing to do with this issue.

There currently is no package named linux-firmware-free for Ubuntu on launchpad to reopen any bug. The Ubuntu packages are called linux-firmware and linux-firmware-nonfree.

linux-firmware: This package provides firmware used by Linux kernel drivers.
linux-firmware-nonfree: This package provides non-free firmware used by Linux kernel drivers. Most of the firmware in this package is for television tuner cards. However, non-free firmware for other classes of devices are provided as well.

We assumed that these were maintained in sync and that linux-firmware was only supposed to contain the free-software firmware while all proprietary firmware should have went do linux-firmware-nonfree. Based on that assumption this report was opened, stating that the proprietary intel firmware should be part of linux-firmware-nonfree instead of linux-firmware.

But instead linux-firmware contains all firmware from the upstream linux-firmware package, while linux-firmware-nonfree contains further non-free firmware which is not in the linux-firmware upstream package.

Since this is not just a single misplaced firmware but linux-firmware contains all firmware from upstream, including all the other proprietary firmware, I believe that this report is the wrong place to track the issue in, as it is specific to certain intel wireless firmware blobs.

Instead I would consider opening a new issue against the linux-firmware package to address all non-free firmware. Then possibly opening an upstream report and link to it. It may also be helpful to ask for the linux-firmware-nonfree package to be renamed to linux-firmware-extra-nonfree to hopefully avoid future confusion.

[era (era)]

Did you click through? This is "Unity Linux" https://launchpad.net/unitylinux not the Unity desktop environment wannabe. But I agree with your conclusion, and thank you for your corrections and added details. Perhaps Ubuntu should split linux-firmware into linux-firmware-free and linux-firmware-nonfree (maybe merge into the existing package) then?