There are ZERO Cambium devices listed on the OpenWrt Table of Hardware.
step #1 to get new devices supported under AREDN is to have them supported under OpenWRT (or at least a very close model)
1) "UBNT countered with modifying the bootloader to accept only signed software images."
This was an incorrect understanding. The UBNT bootloader in AirMax devices does not require signed images. Only loading firmware from the AirOS UI requires signed images. Otherwise AREDN could not load our images with the tftp method. Ironically, it was the AREDN project that discovered the boot loader was only looking for an image to load with a certain version format. This was submitted upstream to OpenWRT:
2) idea that openwrt, hamnet (which referenced bbhn.org site), and other FOSS groups were at risk. On the contrary, the FCC settlement of tplink sins, allowing settings outside of part 15, required tplink to allow FOSS firmware to be loaded.
3) IMO, more on target, the issue is a basic OEM agreement problem. Does a commercial entity, selling a product and making revenue, require an OEM agreement from a 3rd party whose technology is involved. Ubiquiti would want a cut of the sales, who wouldn't. Ubiquiti may also be loosing services or support $$s to try and recoup. Anyone see the results from the trial, or is it still going?
4) another related issue is part 15 compliance -- is a device with different firmware than originally certified by the FCC still in part 15 compliance? the fcc certification is required to market and sell devices in the US, or subject to fines. Generally, FOSS firmware, after being loaded isn't sold, so wouldn't need another certification. However, the operator of the device, would still be responsible to stay within the rules of part 15 and subject to FCC enforcement. (or in our case part 97.) Since it's the end consumer that separately purchased the ubnt hardware and the cambium firmware, and put together, probably part 15 certification isn't necessary ether.
step #1 to get new devices supported under AREDN is to have them supported under OpenWRT (or at least a very close model)
Interesting read. Apparently the Cambium ePMP firmware can be loaded onto Ubiquiti radios as they use the same SOC. This was a fascinating read!
https://blog.j2sw.com/cambium/ubiquiti-vs-cambium-the-legal-battle/
I also found an OpenWRT project for the ePMP radios: https://github.com/m0sia/openwrt-epmp
I'll update the group if/when I sacrafice a Cambium ePMP Force 180 radio (rougly equivalent footpring to NanoStation) to see if OpenWRT loads.
Justin Kennedy
KF5PEL
1) "UBNT countered with modifying the bootloader to accept only signed software images."
This was an incorrect understanding. The UBNT bootloader in AirMax devices does not require signed images. Only loading firmware from the AirOS UI requires signed images. Otherwise AREDN could not load our images with the tftp method. Ironically, it was the AREDN project that discovered the boot loader was only looking for an image to load with a certain version format. This was submitted upstream to OpenWRT:
ref: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/d42a7c4699098507b459fe3ed323d829901eee9e
2) idea that openwrt, hamnet (which referenced bbhn.org site), and other FOSS groups were at risk. On the contrary, the FCC settlement of tplink sins, allowing settings outside of part 15, required tplink to allow FOSS firmware to be loaded.
3) IMO, more on target, the issue is a basic OEM agreement problem. Does a commercial entity, selling a product and making revenue, require an OEM agreement from a 3rd party whose technology is involved. Ubiquiti would want a cut of the sales, who wouldn't. Ubiquiti may also be loosing services or support $$s to try and recoup. Anyone see the results from the trial, or is it still going?
4) another related issue is part 15 compliance -- is a device with different firmware than originally certified by the FCC still in part 15 compliance? the fcc certification is required to market and sell devices in the US, or subject to fines. Generally, FOSS firmware, after being loaded isn't sold, so wouldn't need another certification. However, the operator of the device, would still be responsible to stay within the rules of part 15 and subject to FCC enforcement. (or in our case part 97.) Since it's the end consumer that separately purchased the ubnt hardware and the cambium firmware, and put together, probably part 15 certification isn't necessary ether.
Joe AE6XE