Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 23:21:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Chris BeHanna <behanna@behanna.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom? Message-ID: <20030724231947.I30706@topperwein.pennasoft.com> In-Reply-To: <20030723223007.AD92C5D07@ptavv.es.net> References: <20030723223007.AD92C5D07@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> > From: "Matthew Emmerton" <matt@compar.com>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:21:23 -0400
> >
> > > The folks at Broadcom have not been willing to release any information
> > > on their 800.11g chips for fear of violating FCC regs. The required
> > > NDA would prohibit the release of the source. You can program
> > > both the transmit power and frequency if you have this. (I make no
> > > claim as to whether their concerns have any validity.)
> > >
> > > For that reason there has been no open-source support for these chips.
> >
> > Why would Broadcom be scared? Obviously it's the _driver_ that controls the
> > power/freq output of the chip, so the responsibility of staying within FCC
> > regs is that of the driver authors. Of course, the "no warranty" aspects of
> > open source drivers turns a blind eye to liability, but would things really
> > come back to Broadcom?
>
> The logic is simple. the FCC hold the manufacturer responsible for
> improper RF from any product. The Broadcom chip makes it easy to
> generate illegal RF if you know where to poke.
Can't they just redact that information from the spec.?
--
Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer (Remove "bogus" before responding.)
chris@behanna.org
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030724231947.I30706>