From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jul 24 22:02:32 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C1337B407
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:02:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from skywalker.creative.net.au (skywalker.creative.net.au
	[203.56.168.1])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5211243F85
	for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 24 Jul 2003 22:02:31 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from freebsd@skywalker.creative.net.au)
Received: (qmail 61224 invoked by uid 1008); 25 Jul 2003 05:02:26 -0000
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:02:26 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Message-ID: <20030725050226.GF41445@skywalker.creative.net.au>
References: <20030723223007.AD92C5D07@ptavv.es.net>
	<20030724231947.I30706@topperwein.pennasoft.com>
	<20030724.221744.66191711.imp@bsdimp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20030724.221744.66191711.imp@bsdimp.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 05:02:33 -0000

On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <20030724231947.I30706@topperwein.pennasoft.com>
>             Chris BeHanna <behanna@behanna.org> writes:
> :     Can't they just redact that information from the spec.?
> 
> Typically no.  Even in a redacted spec it would be painfully obvious
> what to do.  Also, different regulatory domains have different
> frequencies that are real no-nos in other regulatory domains and
> they'd need to document how to properly generate the RF in both
> cases.

So, assuming that there's at least one person smart enough to reverse
engineer the binary driver but stupid enough to release it publicly,
what happens to the manufacturer there?

Can they now take "they took relevant steps" as a defence in a law court?





Adrian

-- 
Adrian Chadd			<angryskul> learning is bad
<adrian@FreeBSD.org>		  <angryskul> it just makes the people around you dumber
(angryskul == alfred@irc)	    <angryskul> :(