Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 17:39:28 -0400 From: Graham Todd <gtodd@bellanet.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD inquire Message-ID: <45072910.7040008@bellanet.org> In-Reply-To: <45072272.5040606@bellanet.org> 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> <45072272.5040606@bellanet.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
gaak - just realized I am way OT here. Sorry Graham Todd wrote: > 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?45072910.7040008>