On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 17:58 +0100, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> >> Because it would involve a moderate rewriting of the driver, and we'd
> >> have to carry a delta against Intel's code forever.
> > without knowing this for sure, dont you think that if a largely changed
> > version of the driver appeared in the tree, intel may start developing
> > on that? cause then they wouldnt be the ones that "broke" compliance
> > with FCC(hah) by not doing binaryonly.
> >
>
> Where can I find this FCC law that seems to be crippling open source
> wlan development?
>
> I am not from the USA, so I don't have to comply with the FCC. Could we
> make a non-crippled totally open source driver for use by people outside
> the USA?
as with encryption, arent some of the encryption stuff widely used in
the opensource community also illegal in the united states?
>
> For example, here in the UK one can own radios that can transmit on any
> frequency one likes, but if you actually press the TX button without a
> the appropriate License, you break the law.
im quite certain this is also the case in for example Denmark.
>
> James
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
