Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:11:14 -0400 From: Graham Todd <gtodd@bellanet.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD inquire Message-ID: <45072272.5040606@bellanet.org> In-Reply-To: <20060912195208.GB4099@tirith.brixandersen.dk> References: <200609121102.12577.cms01@tampabay.rr.com> <d8a4930a0609120816ge8de09ci2fa764c477df7d26@mail.gmail.com> <200609121141.09204.cms01@tampabay.rr.com> <4506F6DF.5010900@cs.okstate.edu> <4506FE59.6000600@errno.com> <45070021.3000606@protected-networks.net> <20060912195208.GB4099@tirith.brixandersen.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote: > On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 02:44:49PM -0400, Michael Butler wrote: >> Is this as a consequence of the manufacturers paranoia that open-source >> developers won't comply with wifi regulatory requirements (i.e. channel >> and power restrictions by country) or some other reason? (not that you >> can't just plug in any other card into the pcmcia slot ..), > > It's not manufacturers paranoia - it a requirement from the FCC (among > others) that radio control must not take place in user-accessible > software. How does the FCC define a "user" I wonder? Is there a difference between the "user" of software installed on a laptop and the user of the included hardware and radio equipment that develops said software. Does someone who writes a loadable kernel module that accesses radio hardware so that "user" applications can access the Internet have to assure the regulator of compliance in some way? It seems like an engineer to engineer sort of matter that might require lawyer to lawyer interaction :-\ -- Graham Todd - bellanet.org 613.236.6163 #2443
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?45072272.5040606>