Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 06:36:55 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: adrian@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom? Message-ID: <20030725.063655.88948403.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20030725050226.GF41445@skywalker.creative.net.au> References: <20030724231947.I30706@topperwein.pennasoft.com> <20030724.221744.66191711.imp@bsdimp.com> <20030725050226.GF41445@skywalker.creative.net.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20030725050226.GF41445@skywalker.creative.net.au>
Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> writes:
: 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?
That's a very interesting question.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030725.063655.88948403.imp>