Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jchw 1055 days ago
Wait, though. Doesn't that seem to make this point moot? If they're not responsible for what users do hacking around, then there's not really any need to keep firmware closed source or locked down.

To be fair, I think at least at one point, that is in fact how it worked. I recall having a wrt54g and being able to run it out-of-spec using DD-WRT.
1 comments
giantrobot 1055 days ago
> Doesn't that seem to make this point moot? If they're not responsible for what users do hacking around, then there's not really any need to keep firmware closed source or locked down.

To sell the device the manufacturer has to make sure the device follows regulations and normal usage will follow end user regulations. The easier they make it for regulation-violating user modifications the more likely the product is to not get a license for sale of the device.

In something where the radio baseband is a physical circuit layout conformance is easy. Without modifying surface mount parts that circuit will always conform to its license.

For complicated basebands (WiFi etc) with software control having a fixed/closed firmware is the easiest way to get a license and not get it pulled after the fact.

The WRT54G is a fluke because it ended up using Linux/GPL code in the firmware. It was then obliged to release the source because of that. You can buy devices that allow firmware development and modification but not at retail and you can't offer them for sale without an FCC license covering them.

link
Pet_Ant 1055 days ago
Okay, but you could release the source code for the firmware, and only accept a signed binary blob. This would still be open source (GPL v2 compliant, but not v3 AFAIK) and auditable, but it still be conforming and certifiable.
link
pabs3 1054 days ago
This is what the Intel Sound "open" Firmware does, and it is incredibly annoying.

https://github.com/thesofproject/sof/issues/5814

I don't think that would be GPLv2 compliant either:

https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/mar/25/install-gplv2/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2021/jul/23/tivoization-and-t...

link
giantrobot 1054 days ago
And some manufacturers do just that. Many do not because they're sub-licensing components/code from other companies. Others don't because they want to license their hardware to others and firmware source is a special sauce when the functions of the radio are all in software.
link