From owner-freebsd-hardware Mon Nov 10 12:58:49 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA28045 for hardware-outgoing; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:58:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hardware) Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA28035 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:58:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com) Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id MAA16993; Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:58:09 -0800 (PST) To: "Fred L. Templin" cc: nate@mt.sri.com, hardware@FreeBSD.ORG, kelvin@uni.net.hk Subject: Re: PCMCIA card support list In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:34:26 PST." <199711101934.LAA23754@grayling.erg.sri.com> Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:58:09 -0800 Message-ID: <16989.879195489@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > That's right - I now remember seeing the comment about FreeBSD not > supporting Xircom because of their closed architecture. This brings to > mind an interesting question, however: when I finish the NetWave radio > driver, will the FreeBSD community even want a copy for integration into > the source tree? If not, I suppose I'll have to handle release engineering > on my own. I understand (and support) where the FreeBSD community is coming > from on this issue, and am somewhat chagrined at being stuck with developing > a public-domain driver to a proprietary interface... I don't see why we wouldn't. We wouldn't mind a completely reverse-engineered Xircom driver either (assuming that Xircom didn't have it in mind to sue anyone doing so, and I genuinely don't know whether they would or not), this not being a political issue so much as a technical one. If you've managed to write a driver for some proprietary product and there are no legal barriers to us incorporating it, I don't see a problem at all. Jordan