From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750925AbWGLIXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:23:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750927AbWGLIXT (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:23:19 -0400 Received: from smtp.nildram.co.uk ([195.112.4.54]:16134 "EHLO smtp.nildram.co.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750925AbWGLIXS (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 04:23:18 -0400 From: Alistair John Strachan To: Thomas Tuttle Subject: Re: Will there be Intel Wireless 3945ABG support? Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:23:44 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thorsten Kranzkowski , Alon Bar-Lev , "John W. Linville" , joesmidt@byu.net References: <1152635563.4f13f77cjsmidt@byu.edu> <20060712004212.GA26712@phoenix> <200607120919.44561.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <200607120919.44561.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607120923.44592.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 12 July 2006 09:19, Alistair John Strachan wrote: > On Wednesday 12 July 2006 01:42, Thomas Tuttle wrote: > > On July 11 at 16:16 EDT, Thorsten Kranzkowski hastily scribbled: > > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 09:25:45PM +0300, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: > > > > Also there is no good reason why supplying this daemon as closed > > > > source... All they > > > > wish is people don't mess with their frequencies, and sooner or later > > > > someone will... > > > > > > Using interesting frequencies or output power would be fun for > > > radio amateurs (like me). 2.4GHz is one of our playgrounds after all > > > :-) > > > > Hear, hear! > > > > > Just because Joe Average isn't allowed to use such features doesn't > > > mean that there aren't any legitimate users for it. > > > > > > Preventing the accidental use of unauthorized features would be enough, > > > I think (warnings that force you to look up the manual to find out the > > > correct --force option or similar) > > > I expect developers to be sensible enough to only offer 'public legal' > > > values in the default options list. > > > > Frankly, I think Intel is misinterpreting how strict the FCC is being > > (or maybe the FCC is being too strict). I would interpret their > > mandates as meaning that, as purchased, equipment can't transmit on > > unauthorized frequencies, and that it's not "user-modifiable". User > > modification doesn't include things like opening the case of a toy > > walkie-talkie up and swapping out a crystal, nor does it include things > > like opening up the firmware or driver for something and messing with > > it. > > If you give Matthieu's link[1] a quick read, the OpenBSD developer that > reverse engineered the regulatory blob seems to indicate that the FCC > regulations are just an excuse, so Intel can hide their IP inside the blob. Sorry, correction, reverse engineered the interface between the blob and driver, not the regulatory blob itself. -- Cheers, Alistair. Final year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.