Hello FreeCalypso and Osmocom communities,
I am in the process of creating an informal organisation representing the interests of those members of the GSM universe whose interests are not represented by GSMA etc, and I am inviting you to join me in this venture. I propose that we name our informal organisation GSMUA, standing for GSM Users Association, and my vision for this GSMUA is to be a counter-body (antibody?) to the official GSMA. I just registered the gsmua.org domain name, but there is no website or mailing list set up yet. If someone from the Osmocom camp would like to host the server infrastructure for gsmua.org, I will happily point the DNS to you, otherwise the FreeCalypso family can host it on our server.
My vision for GSMUA is to represent the interests of GSM end users (empowered end users who wish to fully own and control all aspects of their user equipment while operating on public mobile networks in a fully spec-compliant manner), small boutique manufacturers of GSM devices (both MS/user equipment and network infrastructure), small community network operators and others whose interests are not represented by GSMA etc, especially in cases where our interests are in direct conflict with the interests of big players such as giant device manufacturers, giant commercial network operators and governments.
A key goal of GSMUA is to be project-neutral, that is, every person and every small company belonging to any of the categories listed above (empowered end user, small boutique device manufacturer, small community network operator etc) should be fully welcome regardless of which specific project they are associated with. As of today there are at least two different projects offering GSM MS implementations (OsmocomBB and FreeCalypso) and at least two different projects offering network-side GSM implementations (Osmocom and OpenBTS), and I hope that this number of available alternatives will continue to grow: freedom of choice is always a good thing. But at the present time there exists no neutral soil on which members of different projects with a common interest (GSM networks and devices serving the interests of end users rather than big corporations and governments) and a common enemy (just named) can meet, and this lack of neutral meeting ground is the problem which GSMUA is meant to solve.
I also have one practical application for GSMUA in mind already: to manage and legitimize recycling of wasted IMEI number ranges. By the official rules of GSMA etc each different *type* of GSM mobile equipment requires a different TAC, i.e., a range of at least 1 million IMEI numbers. So if a small boutique GSM device manufacturer makes a boutique MS device of which no more than 100 units will ever be made, 999900 IMEI numbers have to be wasted by the official rules. While I don't know of any manufacturer who got a range of 1 million IMEIs and only made 100 devices, we do have examples like Openmoko GTA01/02 and Pirelli DP-L10. In the case of Openmoko GTA02 I've been told that about 15 thousand units were made in total; in the case of Pirelli DP-L10 it appears that the total number produced was somewhere under 100 thousand. In each case a full range of 1 million IMEIs was allocated, and at least 900 thousand numbers out of each range are currently unused and wasted.
If a small boutique manufacturer wishes to offer a boutique GSM MS product to the general public and wishes to ship each unit with a world-unique IMEI that stands a good chance of being accepted as valid by common GSM networks, and the product in question does not qualify for IMEI allocation by the official rules (e.g., the product is a development board specifically intended for users to run their own firmware and connect to live public networks with it, taking full personal responsibility for their actions) - the situation I found myself in with my GSM MS development board - I feel that the small boutique manuf in question should be empowered to squat on a small subrange of someone else's IMEI range if it is known beyond reasonable doubt to be wasted and unused.
However, this recycling of wasted IMEI number ranges could be better organized and given at least some aura of semi-legitimacy if there were a community body set up to manage it, and this is where my proposed GSMUA can come in. Once we get our GSMUA up and running and assign a group of volunteers to be IMEI recycling managers, any small GSM or 3G+ device manufacturer who needs a small range of IMEI numbers will be able to request one from GSMUA, and we will allocate and assign these small subranges out of whatever wasted range we decide to squat on, ensuring that each requestor gets a different subrange.
So these are my ideas, and I would like to see them turn into reality. We are going to need a simple website and a community mailing list at gsmua.org, and for the IMEI recycling service we will need a small group of volunteers to serve as its managers - I and Das Signal from FreeCalypso will be happy to serve on that panel, but it would be nice to also have someone from the Osmocom camp for better neutrality.
Bright Blessings, Mychaela Falconia, Mother of FreeCalypso
Hi Mychaela,
You brought up a tricky subject and I definitely would be interested to hear some feedback from someone who dealt with various government bodies in different countries.
Website hosting is the easy part :)
Thanks, -Serg
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Mychaela Falconia < mychaela.falconia@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello FreeCalypso and Osmocom communities,
I am in the process of creating an informal organisation representing the interests of those members of the GSM universe whose interests are not represented by GSMA etc, and I am inviting you to join me in this venture. I propose that we name our informal organisation GSMUA, standing for GSM Users Association, and my vision for this GSMUA is to be a counter-body (antibody?) to the official GSMA. I just registered the gsmua.org domain name, but there is no website or mailing list set up yet. If someone from the Osmocom camp would like to host the server infrastructure for gsmua.org, I will happily point the DNS to you, otherwise the FreeCalypso family can host it on our server.
My vision for GSMUA is to represent the interests of GSM end users (empowered end users who wish to fully own and control all aspects of their user equipment while operating on public mobile networks in a fully spec-compliant manner), small boutique manufacturers of GSM devices (both MS/user equipment and network infrastructure), small community network operators and others whose interests are not represented by GSMA etc, especially in cases where our interests are in direct conflict with the interests of big players such as giant device manufacturers, giant commercial network operators and governments.
A key goal of GSMUA is to be project-neutral, that is, every person and every small company belonging to any of the categories listed above (empowered end user, small boutique device manufacturer, small community network operator etc) should be fully welcome regardless of which specific project they are associated with. As of today there are at least two different projects offering GSM MS implementations (OsmocomBB and FreeCalypso) and at least two different projects offering network-side GSM implementations (Osmocom and OpenBTS), and I hope that this number of available alternatives will continue to grow: freedom of choice is always a good thing. But at the present time there exists no neutral soil on which members of different projects with a common interest (GSM networks and devices serving the interests of end users rather than big corporations and governments) and a common enemy (just named) can meet, and this lack of neutral meeting ground is the problem which GSMUA is meant to solve.
I also have one practical application for GSMUA in mind already: to manage and legitimize recycling of wasted IMEI number ranges. By the official rules of GSMA etc each different *type* of GSM mobile equipment requires a different TAC, i.e., a range of at least 1 million IMEI numbers. So if a small boutique GSM device manufacturer makes a boutique MS device of which no more than 100 units will ever be made, 999900 IMEI numbers have to be wasted by the official rules. While I don't know of any manufacturer who got a range of 1 million IMEIs and only made 100 devices, we do have examples like Openmoko GTA01/02 and Pirelli DP-L10. In the case of Openmoko GTA02 I've been told that about 15 thousand units were made in total; in the case of Pirelli DP-L10 it appears that the total number produced was somewhere under 100 thousand. In each case a full range of 1 million IMEIs was allocated, and at least 900 thousand numbers out of each range are currently unused and wasted.
If a small boutique manufacturer wishes to offer a boutique GSM MS product to the general public and wishes to ship each unit with a world-unique IMEI that stands a good chance of being accepted as valid by common GSM networks, and the product in question does not qualify for IMEI allocation by the official rules (e.g., the product is a development board specifically intended for users to run their own firmware and connect to live public networks with it, taking full personal responsibility for their actions) - the situation I found myself in with my GSM MS development board - I feel that the small boutique manuf in question should be empowered to squat on a small subrange of someone else's IMEI range if it is known beyond reasonable doubt to be wasted and unused.
However, this recycling of wasted IMEI number ranges could be better organized and given at least some aura of semi-legitimacy if there were a community body set up to manage it, and this is where my proposed GSMUA can come in. Once we get our GSMUA up and running and assign a group of volunteers to be IMEI recycling managers, any small GSM or 3G+ device manufacturer who needs a small range of IMEI numbers will be able to request one from GSMUA, and we will allocate and assign these small subranges out of whatever wasted range we decide to squat on, ensuring that each requestor gets a different subrange.
So these are my ideas, and I would like to see them turn into reality. We are going to need a simple website and a community mailing list at gsmua.org, and for the IMEI recycling service we will need a small group of volunteers to serve as its managers - I and Das Signal from FreeCalypso will be happy to serve on that panel, but it would be nice to also have someone from the Osmocom camp for better neutrality.
Bright Blessings, Mychaela Falconia, Mother of FreeCalypso _______________________________________________ Community mailing list Community@freecalypso.org https://www.freecalypso.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Hi Mychaela,
sorry for the late response.
I think there is a legitimate need (for decades!) to represent the users at entities like GSMA or (much more importantly) the 3GPP and ETSI. 3GPP (and lesser extent ETSI) is where the relevant specifiations are written.
Such an user representation would have a role to * identify where (new) specifications infringe on users rights * make sure the industry at least hears about what's in the best interest of users before they discard all of that and implement whatever they want anyway * Raise public awareness about new proposals for specifications that are particularly problematic from a user point of view, therby assert pressure on the standardizations body before it is too late (spec finalied).
The areas that I can think of are mostly related to privacy, data protection, and general "digital rights".
However, doing the above is fundamentally a lobbying organization, and requires significant funding, starting from membership fees to the relevant standard bodies, to paying for all the related travel expenses to attend the relevant meetings, and people with lots of time on their hands to read the respective draft standards, etc.
I think it would be great to do something here, but I think we as the "super technical, ultra nerdy" people working on Free Software (and harwere) in the telecom sphere are typically not in posession of the right skillset to do so. It's much more about social skills than about technical skills.
Regarding your proposal: It seems like a contradiction in terms to me if you establish something called an 'user association' while your interest is (at least partially) to represent "boutique manufacturers" regarding IMEI allocations. That's not really of the interest of a *user*. I think the least concern of a user is how and where a manufacturer gets his IMEI allocated. Yes, I agree there is something that can be done regarding TAC allocation (like IEEE OUI / MAC address allocation or USB vid/pid allocation). But that's not a topic for users.
Regards, Harald
Hi Harald,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my GSMUA idea. I agree with you that representing the interests of users at GSMA/ETSI/3GPP would a task beyond our means, but I still see social value in creating our own totally informal group purely for mutual support and camaraderie. Throughout human history members of various oppressed minorities have banded together for mutual support, even if that support is purely emotional and nothing more, and I am currently experiencing an unmet need for such a group with regard to GSM/2G.
Regarding your proposal: It seems like a contradiction in terms to me if you establish something called an 'user association' while your interest is (at least partially) to represent "boutique manufacturers" regarding IMEI allocations.
My idea of a recycled IMEI registry was just one potential application for GSMUA, and the overall idea of GSMUA still appeals to me even if we don't pursue the recycled IMEI registry idea. As for representing boutique manufacturers of end user devices in a user association alongside with actual end users, I don't see much of a contradiction, as the interests of the two are expected to coincide. Boutique manufacturers are fundamentally different from mainstream ones: while mainstream manufs act as users' enemies for all practical purposes (they prefer to serve the interests of carriers and/or governments instead, and their entire "security" model sees the user as the enemy), boutique manufs exist for no purpose except to serve the interests of underrepresented end users, and given that FLOSS development typically proceeds by scratching one's own itch, a real-life boutique manuf of GSM devices will almost certainly make those devices for his or her own personal use first and foremost, and then offer them for sale in extremely small volume to others of a like mind.
In my original proposal I outlined the following list of parties whom I see as the target audience for my proposed GSMUA:
* Empowered end users; * Small boutique manufacturers for devices for said empowered end users; * Small community and other non-mainstream network operators, i.e., those who operate networks for the empowered end users and their FLOSS devices to connect to.
A key goal of GSMUA is to be a truly neutral meeting ground where all of the above can come together, with everyone being equally welcome regardless of specific project affiliation, if any. The closest thing that exists so far where all kinds of different people with an interest in cellular telephony can come together are your OsmoCon and OsmoDevCon get-togethers, but those are limited to projects that fall under the Osmocom umbrella, and do not include non-Osmocom projects in the same general space. My vision for GSMUA is to be more inclusive and more neutral, a place where people from Osmocom, FreeCalypso, OpenBTS, YateBTS and others (as well as just persons who are simply interested in the general subject matter, but not affiliated or involved with any specific project) can come together (at least online if not physically) without any of them being in a dominant position.
The very fact that this discussion we are having right now has to be cross-posted to 3 different mailing lists is an indication of the problem which my GSMUA proposal is meant to solve: there presently exists no truly neutral, truly general community mailing list where *everyone* with an interest in non-big-bucks GSM and other cellular networks can interact with others in the same field, regardless of whether their specific interest is in running their own network, making their own end user phones, or just using one or both of those as a highly intelligent, highly empowered end user, and without being specific to any one particular project.
One specific reason why I feel there is a need for people on the empowered-end-user mobile device side to meet with people on the network infrastructure and network operations side is the imminent threat of GSM/2G shutdown by the uncaring major network operators. There exist people in the world, myself included, for whom life without GSM/2G would be absolutely intolerable, as GSM/2G is the only cellular technology for which there exist practically usable FLOSS implementations on the MS/UE side. In both USA and Canada there is only one GSM/2G operator left, and if T-Mobile USA and Rogers completely shut down their GSM/2G networks in another year or two, and reallocate every last 200 kHz channel in both 1900 and 850 MHz bands to their stinking 3G/4G/whatever services so no one else can set up replacement community networks, users of Calypso phones will be completely screwed.
This is where people in the OpenBTS/OpenBSC/etc projects can come to the rescue. As I understand it, there are both commercial and community operators who run their own GSM/2G networks using BTS hardware and software built and maintained by the Osmocom/OpenBTS/etc community, and because of the imminent shutdown of GSM/2G services in "first world" regions, I feel that a bridge needs to be built ASAP between users of 2G-only Calypso phones on one end and those non-mainstream community network operators on the other end. To put it simply, if the evil first world governments take away the last remaining bit of spectrum from GSM/2G users, we (the latter users) need to know which remote third world village we should flee to where we can set up our own OpenBTS/OpenBSC/OsmoNITB/etc GSM/2G network without having radio regulators show up with tanks the next morning to shut it down, or where such a community network already exists.
To put the matter in perspective, I will be giving a presentation about FreeCalypso at REcon in Montreal just two weeks from now, and the subject of imminent GSM/2G shutdown will be unavoidable. Unless there exists another person in the world who is as crazy as me and who would be willing and able to carry out a project similar to FreeCalypso, but using leaked Qualcomm or MTK sources for some 3G-capable or even LTE-capable chip instead of TI's 2G-only ones (seems rather unlikely to me that anyone else can be insane enough to do such a thing), creating a GSM village in some remote 3rd world location that would welcome refugees from the "first world" fleeing from 3G/4G tyranny seems like the most proper solution which I should advocate for.
M~
michela are you kidding ( dont worrry iam a kid at twentees)
calypso bb starts from leaked Docs ( if not sorry ) so why qcom code leak is ugly
osmocom is for open softwear not for any specific hardware so
keeping updated with mainstream hardware is the way so we may have to throw old one ( realy i never bcos i love it like my pet .old is Gold for me ) but in concept its the way ( hope you understand it )
greetings for your GSMUA . iam sure and will there for any help. i hope they will host your project. its happy to know your the mother of freecalypso. in softwear world you maybe first mom :)
and i here for osmocom on qcom == osmodroidbb.wordpress.com
if you mind helping me just put your hands on qcom leaked code i stucked at understanding code. still now i cant find where tmsi like layer3 things handling in qcom modem proc leaked code
thayyil09 yil thayyil@yandex.com wrote:
michela are you kidding ( dont worrry iam a kid at twentees)
Kidding about what?
calypso bb starts from leaked Docs ( if not sorry )
I don't know what you mean by "calypso bb", but OsmocomBB started from not only leaked docs, but also leaked *source code* for TI's original firmware for the chipset in question. Even though OsmocomBB people have chosen (for license worship reasons) not to make any direct reuse of TI's original code beyond a couple of L1 header files, they have extensively studied those TI firmware source leaks in order to gain the knowledge of how to operate the Calypso hardware and how to command the Calypso's DSP ROM to perform the functions it needs to perform for GSM functionality. See here for more juicy details regarding those two OsmocomBB L1 header files I just mentioned:
https://www.freecalypso.org/pipermail/community/2017-April/000361.html
so why qcom code leak is ugly
Where did I say that it is ugly? I have not yet had a chance to look at that QC code you keep talking about - I only downloaded it earlier today and don't have time currently to look at it in any depth, thus I am not qualified to judge whether it is ugly or beautiful or somewhere in between.
osmocom is for open softwear not for any specific hardware
I am not a member of Osmocom, instead I lead my own project (FreeCalypso) in the same general space, hence the arguments regarding what Osmocom is or is not have no direct applicability to me or to my non-Osmocom project.
keeping updated with mainstream hardware is the way
There is no such thing as "the way"; it may be YOUR way, but it is not *my* way.
its happy to know your the mother of freecalypso. in softwear world you maybe first mom :)
Well, some of us (me included) subscribe to the view that our poor planet is *way* overpopulated, hence engaging in biological procreation (imposing more living and resource-consuming humans on the poor planet) is akin to a crime. As a result, those of us with maternal instincts have to find a different outlet for those instincts, such as becoming the mother of a FLOSS project. :)
Also leaders of FLOSS projects commonly take on titles such as principal developer, maintainer or even BDFL - but I prefer Mother. :)
and i here for osmocom on qcom == osmodroidbb.wordpress.com
I assume you are talking about the QC source leak described on this page:
http://syshwid.blogspot.in/2016/10/build-qualcomm-modem-msm8626.html
(yes, I can read Russian just fine, it's one of my native languages)
When you first posted about it back in April, I went to that page and the https://drop.me/B439WM mirror it talks about was down - appeared to have been taken down. But when I tried it again earlier today while in the process of composing this response to you, it worked, so I was finally able to download this QC source you've been talking about.
However, even if this leak is 100% real source and not a semi-src (the Russian hacker says he was able to make a complete build from this source, but it doesn't mean that everything is really rebuilt from source - there could be major important pieces that are in the form of linkable binary objects, and it would take a lot of work to analyze the source to see which is the case), I have my doubts that this MSM8x26 platform would make a good replacement for FreeCalypso. I see the following (potential) problems:
* According to the marketing info that I could easily find for this chip(set), it seems to be CDMA/3GPP2-oriented, which is not what I am interested in. That marketing info seems to imply that the chip supports UMTS/WCDMA too, but says nothing about GSM support. I principally refuse to use any chip, chipset or device that does not support GSM, i.e., I am potentially interested in having support for UMTS/WCDMA and maybe even LTE *in addition* to GSM/2G, but never instead of. Furthermore, one of my absolute requirements is to be able to invert the preference order for network search, i.e., have the modem always preferentially choose GSM/2G networks if such service is available, fall back to 3G/UMTS only if no GSM is available, and use LTE (or more properly VoLTE only, *without* LTE Internet service) only as the last resort when neither 2G nor 3G is available.
* This MSM8x26 chip(set) has a ton of extra hardware for making those smartphones which I detest: 4 CPU cores, a powerful GPU and gawd knows what other crap. I desire a phone that can only make plain old phone calls and absolutely positively nothing else, based on a processor that has just enough horsepower to make those plain old phone calls and not one iota more, thus having all that extra application processor power would be a problem for me.
* Where are the chip datasheets and reference board schematics and so forth that would be needed in order to make our own board with the chip(set) you are advocating for? Being able to build my own hardware starting from just chips is an absolute requirement for me, as I am NOT willing to use an Android slab phone, even it has a liberated baseband - I want a phone in my own personally preferred form factor (a "dumbphone" *without* Android), hence I need to be able to build my own hw in order to package it in the FF I desire.
Overall, it is pretty clear to me that we are on different paths with very different interests and goals.
M~
Hi Mychaela,
[this is getting slightly off-topic, so I'm removing the openbsc@lists.osmocom.org list]
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:18:37PM -0800, Mychaela Falconia wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "calypso bb", but OsmocomBB started from not only leaked docs, but also leaked *source code* for TI's original firmware for the chipset in question.
Correct. As the given source code was proven on-line in the public for more than half a year, with thousands of downloads counted by the hosting platform, no copyright holder would still have had a valid claim that the information contained therein would be a "trade secret". So we could use the information learned from there, but we can of course not re-use any copyrightable portion of the code, as that would infringe on copyright.
Even though OsmocomBB people have chosen (for license worship reasons) not to make any direct reuse of TI's original code [...]
It doesn't matter what license we chose for our code. As soon as we incorporate copyrightable portions of third party source code without explicit permission of its copyright holder, we are in violation of copyright. That's both a civil and criminal offence in many jurisdictions, including those where the developers at the time (mostly EU) reside in.
So our procedure was not "for license worship reasons", but for the simple reason that we wanted to ensure both our own personal freedom as well as the continued freedom of the code we wrote, with no attack surface for any copyright holder to take it down (and/or extort "damages" or the like).
Regards, Harald
it becomes offtopic
sorry i will divert it now
i said kidding
because i felt you worrried much like a kid :) sorry laugh it off
I don't know what you mean by "calypso bb", but OsmocomBB started
while i writing your in mind so osmocom becomes calypso
But when I tried it again earlier today while in the process of composing this response to you,
thank you for spending your time on this
- According to the marketing info that I could easily find for this
chip(set), it seems to be CDMA/3GPP2-oriented,
no it supports GSm . source contain gsm related files. and practical realworld chips used in sony and lg supports gsm
Being able to build my own hardware starting from just chips is an absolute requirement for me,
yes i got it .. your with a specific hardware .
Overall, it is pretty clear to me that we are on different paths with very different interests and goals.
sorry for last coments i mistaken you as osmocom member from starting. your right qcom leaks canot be complete replacement for calypso .
but i suggested another way which dosent need datasheets or any hw info
# i suggested to add a compatiblity layer on top of layer1 code of qcom leak . ( do we need hw info ) so layer2 3 of osmocombb can communicate with it.( if no hw specific info have to send recive)
. i agree its not much usefull for hw geek because datasheets unavialable so custom board difficult (schematcs may avilabel because phones ) and in softwear side extending proprietery code and hosting only extended part related legal view is out of my knowlege.
Hello,
I am sorry, but you seem to ignore a lot of things making it hard to have a meaningful conversation that actually brings something to the table.
The leaks you keep mentioning are not comparable to each other at all - like apples and oranges. Calypso is a relatively simple system - at least compared to Qcom's Hexagon, and it still took years of work by and effort by talented people to have OsmocomBB running. So please stop saying that "leak is there what's stopping us". Qcom's architecture complexity is greater than Calypso's by multiple magnitudes.
Last but not least I for sure would really appreciate if you would use proper punctuation, complete sentences and correct spelling of the right words. You could be young or old writing proper emails is always important. If I could do it using a touchscreen device you could as well. It makes your efforts and ideas look a lot more serious as well.
I am sorry if I offended you, but I felt I need to tell you this and I couldn't stop myself.
Kind regards,
Domi
2017. júl. 6. dátummal, 10:14 időpontban thayyil09 yil thayyil@yandex.com írta:
michela are you kidding ( dont worrry iam a kid at twentees)
calypso bb starts from leaked Docs ( if not sorry ) so why qcom code leak is ugly
osmocom is for open softwear not for any specific hardware so
keeping updated with mainstream hardware is the way so we may have to throw old one ( realy i never bcos i love it like my pet .old is Gold for me ) but in concept its the way ( hope you understand it )
greetings for your GSMUA . iam sure and will there for any help. i hope they will host your project. its happy to know your the mother of freecalypso. in softwear world you maybe first mom :)
and i here for osmocom on qcom == osmodroidbb.wordpress.comif you mind helping me just put your hands on qcom leaked code i stucked at understanding code. still now i cant find where tmsi like layer3 things handling in qcom modem proc leaked code
baseband-devel@lists.osmocom.org
-
Harald Welte -
Mychaela Falconia -
Serg l -
thayyil09 yil -
Tomcsányi, Domonkos