Mike McCarty wrote: > Andy Green wrote: > >> Mike McCarty wrote: >> >> >>>> The manufacturers accept such restrictions only because they know a >>>> binary-only distribution is acceptable, for example, in the Windows >>>> world. At the edges already Linux challenges this assumption (because >>>> the benefits using it brings outweigh the risk from loss of obfuscation >>>> of the code) and can bring about change. So it isn't enough to >>>> consider >>>> the situation as it is, one also needs to consider what Linux can make >>>> be by its policies towards closed source modules. >>>> >>>> I don't buy the story that certain classes of device can never have >>>> open >>>> source drivers regardless of all considerations. If Linux is desirable >>> >>> >>> Who argued this? I haven't seen this argument. >> >> >> >> This is the explanation put forward by the binary-only wireless network >> companies, that regulatory requirements mean there can be no OSS >> wireless drivers because it would facilitate using the PLLs on the chip >> outside of the allowed frequencies for the countries it is sold in. > > > Hmm. Actually, this makes sense. It would be a lot cheaper this way > than actually to ship different hardware. And the regulations make > it clear that it cannot be something someone could easily figure out > and change as a user. > It would make since if they were supplying different drivers depending on where they are selling the device. But what I have seen is that the installer asks what country (drop-down menu) and this determines what channels the driver uses. So all you have to do is pick a different country... So a closed-source driver does not insure compliance... Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
