From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751262AbWGLLNV (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:13:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751254AbWGLLNV (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:13:21 -0400 Received: from outpipe-village-512-1.bc.nu ([81.2.110.250]:53453 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750760AbWGLLNU (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 07:13:20 -0400 Subject: Re: Will there be Intel Wireless 3945ABG support? From: Alan Cox To: James Ketrenos Cc: Alon Bar-Lev , Alistair John Strachan , "John W. Linville" , joesmidt@byu.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <44B443E4.1000707@linux.intel.com> References: <1152635563.4f13f77cjsmidt@byu.edu> <20060711171238.GA26186@tuxdriver.com> <200607111909.22972.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> <44B3ED29.4040801@gmail.com> <1152644119.18028.46.camel@localhost.localdomain> <44B443E4.1000707@linux.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:30:39 +0100 Message-Id: <1152703839.22943.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.2 (2.6.2-1.fc5.5) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ar Maw, 2006-07-11 am 17:35 -0700, ysgrifennodd James Ketrenos: > The obvious distinction between scsi firmware and the regulatory > daemon blob being discussed here is that the regulatory daemon runs on > the host vs. an adapter. "It isn't a pirate copy of the movie because my copy is on VHS and theirs is on DVD" Derivative works are not really a question of where something is, think about a distributed computation, or a tool which partly compiles a program into VHDL for high performance execution. I'm not sure this is a useful kernel list argument anyway since I am sure Intel legal will have considered the question and reached their own conclusions and also vendors and Intel will continue beating each other up until a neat solution is found. > There are no questions from a licensing standpoint. For Intel sure, if it owns all the bits then it can do what it likes with its bits. > To that end I would encourage anyone that may be interested in using > such a piece of code to read the regulatory notice packaged with our > drivers, and linked for your reference here[1]. Oh I understand *why* the issue arises, and as a licensed radio amateur I'm quite well aware of the concerns. I'm also permitted to use 2.4Ghz at higher power for amateur purposes. Alan