Contributing to the effort

[Denis]

Tom, i'm afraid I'm being a bit unpolite, but can you
use 'reply below quote' style? thanks...

 >tom at ceisystems.com wrote:
 >>Scrap 'FCC forbids open source' tale.
 >>FCC does not forbid you to program hardware.
 >>
 >>FCC forbids hardware verdor of making hardware which can be
 >>tricked into non-FCC compliant operation. Providing
 >>binary-only .o module is not sufficient because it is
 >>hackable just like all those warez hacks and keygens for
 >>ordinary windoze executables.
 >>
 >>Truely FCC compliant device would refuse to load firmware
 >>which is not digitally signed by manufacturer.
 >>Or alternatively, hardware might be made so it is physically
 >>impossible to exceed FCC mandated power levels etc, no matter
 >>what firmware you load in it.
 >>
 >>IMHO Atheros just use that FCC argument to divert
 >>'why is it not open source?!' yells elsewhere.
 >
> Hello again,
> 	In fact, this is not true.  If you read the FCC guidelines
> and/or meeting minutes, you will see that if you, a customer, manage to
> circumvent the manufacturer's limitations, they may be held liable.  It
> comes down to this...a vendor must make a reasonable effort to prevent
> you from, say, cranking the output to 6 Watts.

I just saying that binary module does not protect vendor
from crackers. They routinely crack Windoze copy-protected
binary-only exe files, right? Binary-only kernel module
can (and will be) cracked too.

In light of this vendor can release source as well.

PS. In fact I already have seen posts about modifying
some binary firmware files in order to drive hardware
beyond FCC mandated specs.
--
vda