Ralink drivers under GPL license but still considered non-free?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
I've noticed that in the Debian packages and on here, the rt2800usb and older RT2870sta Ralink drivers are considered non-free. There have been many people in the past who bought this dongle or got it from a friend (like in my case) and it doesn't work out of the box for Trisquel.
When browsing the downloads for the Ralink drivers at http://www.ralinktech.com/en/04_support/support.php?sn=501, clicking on an actual driver download takes you to a page that requires your name and email, but that can be filled with random data if desired. The big thing to notice on this page and in the actual driver file is that it says it is under a GPL v2 license.
I ran Ubuntu 12.04 in VirtualBox to test a modified version of the 2011_0427_RT3572_Linux_STA_v2.5.0.0.DPO.tar.bz2 driver from http://linuxforums.org.uk/index.php?topic=852.msg71530 and it works much much better than what is with the stock Ubuntu kernel.
So with that in mind and with the drivers under GPL license, what makes it non-free? This is a genuinly honest question considering that the default rt2800usb driver in the Ubuntu 10.04-12.04 kernel isn't that good, but compiling the RT3572USB driver from scratch (which also works with RT2870) is thought to be more stable with connectivity and speed.
Without knowing this case it could be the same as with Linux, which is under GPL v2 and yet non-free, because it contains binary blobs possibly in breach of it's own license. These proprietary firmwares are purged in Linux-Libre, which is what the free distros use. Debian also uses a sanitized kernel, unlike Ubuntu.
Related reading http://mako.cc/writing/hill-when_free_software_isnt_better.html
I am a member!
The driver portion is under the GPL and the firmware is not free or not under
the GPL license. You can't utilise this card without the non-free firmware.
This is what they call a binary blob. Not everybody objects to binary blobs
and the mainline kernel developers include such non-free software. Some
drivers include firmware released under the GPL although have obfuscated the
code. In this event it is not free.
The free software community objects to non-free binary blobs and thus
Trisquel does not include it.
I do see some things which imply there may be chipsets that don't require the
firmware to be present to get partial use of some chipsets that use this
driver. However I can't seem to find any chipset where that is the case which
use this driver. They all seem to produce a "firmware not found" message if
the firmware is not present. For instance the RT3572USB depends on the rt2800
firmware I believe.
I am a translator!
I had the same situation with a friend who bought himself a multifunction
device, a scanner/printer/fax from HP. It didn't work under Trisquel out of
the box and I was convinced the thing had no free drivers at all. However, on
the HP homepage you can download both the drivers and the firmware. The
drivers are GPL'd, the firmware isn't. For the sake of convenience we left it
at that.
Bottom line, Radeon cards aren't the only devices who suffer from
free-drivers + non-free firmware.
I am a member!
Absolutely right.
Not all of HP's printers are free software compatible. The driver is although you would have to take a look at the documentation. HP is one of the only companies that does a good job of documenting all its printers for GNU/Linux. The one itch I have with them in regards to printers is they don't advertise GNU/Linux on the box or if a printer is freedom friendly. The online documentation doesn't use quite the right wording although despite it you can determine from it which printers are free software compatible.
The key things you want to check for are:
Support level: Full
HP Recommended? Yes
Driver plug-in: None
Requires firmware download: No
If all these things are true in the documentation your HP printer should (or at least eventually) work with Trisquel.
There are other devices out there that have non-free firmware as well although the drivers are free. All USB N wifi cards for instance with the exception of the ones using the AR9170 chipset are dependent on non-free firmware. I'm not 100% sure if every N USB chipset has free drivers although many/most do. The other thing we always verify with wireless chipsets is mainline kernel support. If that exists and it's got no firmware or free firmware all derivative kernels (like libre-kernel and debian's kernel) should have support. There are almost no exceptions. The one or two exceptions are where there is a bug (free firmware hasn't been packaged for the distribution) or specialised distribution for a device with little storage space (routers for instance). There may be some other exceptions with devices utilising more storage space although non-PC. Like cell phones and other handhelds. There just isn't a point to including firmware/driver when the device hasn't got the ports or there is already built-in wireless.
That is really misleading. They should be clearer by either making the
firmware and drivers both GPL or both proprietary to avoid confusion. From my
point of view, it seems like they are saying "hey look guys we support open
source" to give the impression that they are a forward thinking tech company
when they don't even fully understand the GPL licence. Maybe it is a language
and culture barrier since they are out of Taiwan or simply they know they
aren't totally open and hope we play along anyways. Can never tell with
corporations.
Its like they are wasting their time releasing their drivers under GPL when
their overall product doesn't support the complete free software package
because those who support the GPL license know it is still non-free by having
it on their system. Its a shame considering how popular this chipset is.
I am a member!
Did anybody look at the source code for the RT3572 chipset by chance? I'd be
interested in confirming there is a firmware dependency too. I'm 99.99%
confident there is. If I recall I did look into all of these chipsets and
confirmed it a while back. I also noted numerous people online indicated
missing firmware. The scattered information about the chipset/driver though
suggests there are some which may not need any firmware.
I am a member!
The driver portion is under the GPL and the firmware is not free or not under the GPL license. You can't utilise this card without the non-free firmware. This is what they call a binary blob. Not everybody objects to binary blobs and the mainline kernel developers include such non-free software. Some drivers include firmware released under the GPL although have obfuscated the code. In this event it is not free.
The free software community objects to non-free binary blobs and thus Trisquel does not include it.
I do see some things which imply there may be chipsets that don't require the firmware to be present to get partial use of some chipsets that use this driver. However I can't seem to find any chipset where that is the case which use this driver. They all seem to produce a "firmware not found" message if the firmware is not present. For instance the RT3572USB depends on the rt2800 firmware I believe.
I am a translator!
I had the same situation with a friend who bought himself a multifunction device, a scanner/printer/fax from HP. It didn't work under Trisquel out of the box and I was convinced the thing had no free drivers at all. However, on the HP homepage you can download both the drivers and the firmware. The drivers are GPL'd, the firmware isn't. For the sake of convenience we left it at that.
Bottom line, Radeon cards aren't the only devices who suffer from free-drivers + non-free firmware.
I am a member!
Absolutely right.
Not all of HP's printers are free software compatible. The driver is although
you would have to take a look at the documentation. HP is one of the only
companies that does a good job of documenting all its printers for GNU/Linux.
The one itch I have with them in regards to printers is they don't advertise
GNU/Linux on the box or if a printer is freedom friendly. The online
documentation doesn't use quite the right wording although despite it you can
determine from it which printers are free software compatible.
The key things you want to check for are:
Support level: Full
HP Recommended? Yes
Driver plug-in: None
Requires firmware download: No
If all these things are true in the documentation your HP printer should (or
at least eventually) work with Trisquel.
There are other devices out there that have non-free firmware as well
although the drivers are free. All USB N wifi cards for instance with the
exception of the ones using the AR9170 chipset are dependent on non-free
firmware. I'm not 100% sure if every N USB chipset has free drivers although
many/most do. The other thing we always verify with wireless chipsets is
mainline kernel support. If that exists and it's got no firmware or free
firmware all derivative kernels (like libre-kernel and debian's kernel)
should have support. There are almost no exceptions. The one or two
exceptions are where there is a bug (free firmware hasn't been packaged for
the distribution) or specialised distribution for a device with little
storage space (routers for instance). There may be some other exceptions with
devices utilising more storage space although non-PC. Like cell phones and
other handhelds. There just isn't a point to including firmware/driver when
the device hasn't got the ports or there is already built-in wireless.
That is really misleading. They should be clearer by either making the firmware and drivers both GPL or both proprietary to avoid confusion. From my point of view, it seems like they are saying "hey look guys we support open source" to give the impression that they are a forward thinking tech company when they don't even fully understand the GPL licence. Maybe it is a language and culture barrier since they are out of Taiwan or simply they know they aren't totally open and hope we play along anyways. Can never tell with corporations.
Its like they are wasting their time releasing their drivers under GPL when their overall product doesn't support the complete free software ethics because those who support the GPL license know it is still non-free. Its a shame considering how popular this chipset is.
I am a member!
Did anybody look at the source code for the RT3572 chipset by chance? I'd be interested in confirming there is a firmware dependency too. I'm 99.99% confident there is. If I recall I did look into all of these chipsets and confirmed it a while back. I also noted numerous people online indicated missing firmware. The scattered information about the chipset/driver though suggests there are some which may not need any firmware.
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios