[PATCH] b43/b43legacy - Credit Broadcom with enabling the development of the drivers
nikulinpi at gmail.com
Tue Sep 21 00:24:54 EDT 2010
Actually, it's totally legal to write any software for wireless
hardware. The only legal limitations are on manufacturer's side rather
than on consumer's side. And existence of "hackable" drivers doesn't
affect manufacturers approval by FTC in any way. If FTC workers are
retarded to a degree that they rate emission rates basing on software,
it's nobody's fault beside themselves.
It's totally legal to "hack" radio equipment to operate outside of
license's diapason, the only criminal liability comes if you try to
impair operations of emergency services and military communication
systems. Not to mention the fact that the most of world's 480
countries are living outside of "ITUdom" of the developed world, which
means that they doesn't have even most "common" radio regulations.
On 20 September 2010 21:01, Peter Stuge <peter at stuge.se> wrote:
> Ehud Gavron wrote:
>>>> It is not up to us to "...deal with regulatory considerations..."
>>> No, you see, that's wrong because no one else was,
>> makes no sense if I try to figure out what you intended.
> I agree with you both.
> Developers are good at development and in an ideal world that's what
> we should focus on. Unfortunately our world is not always ideal, so a
> project such as Linux can get honest (if young) interest from vendors
> when developers not only do development but do it with vendors'
> problems in mind.
> It's certainly not "up to us" - but I think we benefit from stepping
> up and solving the problem.
> Being a technical guy you could say that I'm not a fan of artificial
> limitations, and clearly writing code to *support* such limitations
> will add some overhead. But on the other hand I have to play the
> cards I've been dealt if I want to stay in the game, as do vendors,
> and I think it is nice that Linux solves the (legal) problem for now.
> I certainly agree that it is a kludge fix and in the wrong place.
> Unfortunately fixing the law where it is broken takes a long time. :\
> The root of problem is the law, but by enabling those who need (or
> want) to comply with (old, broken) regulation we can get them more
> involved in Linux and that gets us technical, political and business
> advantages over other projects that may have been considered
> alternatives. In the short term it can be bumpy to get a new vendor
> involved but in the long term I, like Luis, think that it is a win.
> By applying our development skills to *how* they can comply we can
> also make sure that we only make compromises where required, and
> maybe we can even offer something for brand new technology
> developments. Finally, to play nice with the relevant authorities I
> think the choice to enable self-policing (if you will) by default
> makes sense. Of course it must be easy to change for those who want
> to or need to, and I believe that it is.
>> It's time for you to go to bed.
> It sure looked like Luis was in a hurry when he wrote the email. It
> wasn't the best english I've seen and neither is mine. I guess that
> he felt that it was important to reply, to try to clarify his point
> and his reasoning, so that you would have a better chance of seeing
> the issue also from his point of view.
> b43-dev mailing list
> b43-dev at lists.infradead.org
More information about the b43-dev