Intel To Release Next-Gen BIOS Code Under CPL 224
An anonymous reader writes "Intel said today that it plans to release the 'Foundation code' of its next-generation firmware technology -- a successor to the PC BIOS -- under the Common Public License (CPL), an open source license, later this year. More than 20 years old, the BIOS (Basic Input-Output System) is the oldest software technology in PC platforms. Intel says its firmware Foundation code, a result of a project codenamed Tiano, 'provides that the successor to the BIOS will be based on up-to-date software technology.' The Foundation code is designed to be extended with new features and services, such as improved platform manageability, serviceability, and administrative interfaces which are too complex to implement in the old BIOS environment, according to Intel."
An ode to DRM FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Credibility for Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, the BIG concern for me on the horizon is the upcoming DRM-from-the-bios-to-the-speaker-cone mentality that some unnamed people [microsoft.com] are trying to push. If Intel wants to score major bonus points in my book, opening up the bios (or whatever they feel like calling it) could definately do it.
If I know that I can always depend on my computer to do what I tell it to and not what Intel/Microsoft/Belken tell it to do, I will go that route.
Also, to Intel... I'm buying a new server next month. I had decided on AMD. I'm now considering Intel as an option. Now everyone in the marketing department go tell the engineering department to go impliment this!
Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it, the fact that you can see the source code to Linux doesn't mean that a regular user has any greater ability to gain root. That's exactly how these new DRM systems work, by taking a way a user's right to be root on their own machine.
Flash your own Tiano BIOS, and on DRM certified mobo's it simply won't run unless its signed by Microsoft or someone.
So this wont help with DRM, but it's still a good thing
Not again... (Score:4, Interesting)
I never had a problem with Intel's processor ID. Every networked computer already has a unique MAC address. What is the difference?
Wonder how it will affect (Score:5, Interesting)
Either way, kudos to Intel.
Great! (Score:5, Interesting)
In the future I can see the ultimate "geek" motherboard having a memory-stick or CF card slot for the bios, rather then using chips that aren't often used by consumers. You'd be able to walk down to best buy or Wal-Mart and buy a new bios chip to play around with.
Re:Not really (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, as you mentioned, all they have to do is require that the BIOS is signed to prevent the end user from doing that, which would be unfortunate. This also assumes that the open source part is functionally complete (i.e. not a layer ontop of the layer that drives the hardware, which could be closed source so nothing you made could be booted because you lacked that part).
I worry it won't happen, but I would LOVE to be able to tweek my own BIOS code. Imagine if you could do that with the computers you own now. Be able to go back to that old PII and add the ability to boot off of USB, or add LBA to an old PC, or just rearrage that horrid BIOS user interface on that no-name PC in the corner. Or you could disable more stuff you're not using to speed up the boot processor. And there are always patches to the Linux kernel and such to work around buggy BIOSes, think if you could fix that yourself. And corporations wouldn't have to worry about the support nightmare, thanks to that classic phrase in the computer industry "We don't support what we didn't ship". You touch it, YOU'RE responsible, good or bad. And if you change something and they like it, it's open source so they can check it out and implement it and make everyone's life better.
I hope the industry sees the light and allows what I suggested above (something that Linux BIOS is working towards too, in many ways). But even if things end up like they are now, I'll be happy as long as I can flash my own BIOS and it doesn't have to be MS DRMed. Because I'm not buying a computer that is programed to not let me use it.
After all, would you buy a car that you're not allowed to drive? (As a car for everyday use, I'm not talking buying the Bonne & Clyde car or something like that).
Re:Not again... (Score:5, Interesting)
From the LinuxBIOS mail list earlier today: (Score:5, Interesting)
Ron on the LinuxBIOS list put this best earlier today:
You are not going to get the hardware startup code in Tiano. You're going to get the code that runs on top of the hardware startup code, and gives you a DOS-like startup system.
Don't expect to suddenly see northbridge code on the intel web site. Part of the goal of Tiano/EFI is to make the release of such information unneeded. There is a silver lining. Supposedly, the interfaces from the hidden hardware code to Tiano will be public. This means you can conceivably chuck Tiano and put your own thing in its place, which could be
This is how Linux NetWorx built the Alpha LinuxBIOS:
- hidden hardware
code (Alpha SROM) [ not changed, left in place]
- LinuxBIOS [with Alpha support, minus memory setup code]
- Linux
Worked fine, should work for Tiano platforms. In other words, the binary support code for Tiano could solve some problems for us:
- if we don't get the specs for the Intel chips (likely), then we can just leave the "hidden hardware code" in place, and flash over Tiano,
replacing Tiano with LinuxBIOS. I believe Linux Labs did something like this for their ClearWater port 2 years or so ago.
- Makes porting to other Intel mobos easier.
Why the CPL, not the GPL?
So that 3rd party vendors can add incompatibilities -- err, value --
and charge you for it.
Put another way, Tiano could be a linuxbios payload. I don't have much
use for a Tiano/EFI payload, however. Tiano/EFI is very complex and if
I'm going to put a complex thing like that into flash I'd much rather
it be linux. I don't want something that's most of the work of an OS
but not much of the capability, which pretty much describes Tiano/EFI.
I'm intrigued that they are open sourcing it. I had for years only
heard that it would be available under a type of NDA. I think LinuxBIOS
is part of the push for open sourcing this type of software. But I
doubt you're going to see Phoenix et. al. open source their
'value-added' Tiano, which means a source fork is built into the model.
That's trouble for us as customers -- we already suffer daily with all
these BIOS extensions and undocumented, hidden gotchas. We already say
this once: there was supposed to be a standard "hand off" on IA64 for
startup. I found out that this "standard" handoff was modified by
several vendors: it was no longer standard.
Let's hope the "hidden
hardware code" to Tiano interface remains standard. Also, if this code
is anything like the EFI code, it won't build under Linux, only builds
under Windows. It won't "just work" for us.
All that said, I think Intel is doing a good thing by open sourcing the Tiano system, and I congratulate them on doing so.
Re:OpenBoot? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
And that's what most people do with their PC. Drive it. Not muck around under the hood and tweak the fuel injectors, or adjust the slope of the ABS initiation.
Re:OpenFirmware (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention that it's much cooler. You've got to love how easy it is to tell a Solaris machine to boot from ANYTHING without even an OS on the system! Boot from network? Never have to touch the machine. Boot from USB? A two line command? CDROM? Same! Boot from next years wizzigig? Done.
It's also great for saving a system. Mislink the superblock? Write a Fortran program to fix it! Need a quick calcuation done while writing your program? Write a bit of Fortran to calculate it for you! Face it, OpenFirmware is simply cooler than anything on the Intel platform, present or future.
(BTW, keep an eye out for CmdrTaco. He always shows up with his OpenBoot troll [slashdot.org] ten hours after the story has been posted. Come on Taco! You've got to get moving!
Once upon a time, IBM released the BIOS source... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not Open Source, but invaluable when we were developing device drivers, TSRs, and other low-level software.
OpenFirmware rules (Score:5, Interesting)
For those who aren't familiar with Forth: Forth is a very powerful and easy to learn language. It's hardware requirements are very light and it is completely portable. Except for the most fundamental procedures, Forth is written in Forth and is completely modifiable and extensable. Forth programs are written as extensions of Forth itself. Forth is an interpreted language, and can be used from a Forth shell, much like BASIC. However, it is almost as fast as C, and equally powerful. Forth is an ideal language for embedded computer systems.
For those of you that aren't familiar with OpenFirmware: OF is written in Forth and is very powerful because it can be manipulated from the Forth shell. This makes it very straightforward for an intelligent user to modify his BIOS as he sees fit, write BIOS scripts, modify settings, etc. The OF Forth shell gives you all the power of a normal PC BIOS and GRUB and then some. It even has a rudimentary edlin like text editor. Anyway if you own a Mac, look up some info on OF and play around with it a bit, it's pretty freakin cool.
Re:CPL (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:An ode to DRM FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Get our minds right first and last. (Score:3, Interesting)
> It prevents you from sharing data which you don't have the authority to share.
Ok, hardly essential functions of society,
But still very annoying.
- MugginsM
Re:OpenBoot? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Free Programmers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Let us not be too hasty to chastise intel for being smart...
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Interesting)
It might prove useful now and again to conpare documented behavior to actual, but that is about the extent of it.
Re:Great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope.
The entire purpose of the new system is to prevent exactly that. Sure you can change the code, but then the firmware chip (trust chip)then reports a "currupted" boot value. The new trusted software will refuse to install. The new trusted files will be encrypted and unreadable. The new websites will give you error messages and be unviewable.
With Trusted Computing the source code becomes useless. The system defeats the GPL.
But to top it all off, Cisco has announced a line of Network Admission Control routers that will deny you any internet access at all. It is billed as "blocking viruses", but what it really does is refuse you a connection unless you are running a Trusted computer and approved software. If you try to use to source to make any chages the hardware reports a "currupted" boot value. As far as the ISP's router is concered you are either infected with a virus or at least vulnerable to a virus.
All new computers sold computers will start shipping with Trust chips installed by default within a year. After 4 years or so essentially all PC's will have been routinely replaced as obsolete. I figure such routers could be generally deployed by ISPs in approximately 2008.
-
Re:Open bios code wont do you any good. (Score:3, Interesting)
With an Open Source OS, I can hack away those file permissions while retaining full compatiblity with the orginal. Nothing difficult about it. The only reason it hasn't been done, is because file permissions are beneficial to the owner of the system.
If there's DRM in the BIOS that isn't beneficial to the owner, he'll get rid of it if he can. He might not be able to do it himself, but someone else will. If it's possible, of course. It depends on the implementation.
Re:CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
What about AMD 64 bit CPU's (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Once upon a time, IBM released the BIOS source. (Score:3, Interesting)
You had the source of the program; I'd say it was open source. No, it wasn't GPL licensed (or BSD, or whatever), but it certainly wasn't "closed" either.
Re:OpenFirmware rules (Score:3, Interesting)
Great for when your Firmware stuffs up your display!
Not to mention being able to solve towers of Hanoi problems!
You think worms are bad now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you notice the part about 'administrative interfaces'? This means your PC will have a remote control interface built right into the BIOS. Now anything that's turned on and connected to the network will be remotely exploitable. Even your Linux box, or your toaster will be worm fodder.
Re:CPL (Score:3, Interesting)
In the first passage you cite, it need only be made available under the CPL if released in source code form. So, you could distribute binaries of the code under any license you want. The satement that the new license "complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement" isn't the same as saying you have to release it under the same license. It just means you can't violate any of the conditions of that license (say, about warantees or whatever).