Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 20:01:00 -0700 From: Mauro <mcepeda@ualberta.ca> To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: airport estreme with Freebsd Message-ID: <1108350060.4108.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4207AEE5.80500@finnovative.net> References: <1106542417.29481.168.camel@localhost.localdomain> <41F4ADC1.8070201@freebsd.org> <42017276.1010304@finnovative.net> <4201C54A.8090009@freebsd.org> <1107418085.4125.27.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050206002904.GJ9350@dragon.nuxi.com> <1107656286.4131.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050207045911.GA8619@dragon.nuxi.com> <1107761856.5631.29.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4207AEE5.80500@finnovative.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>I think we're entirely over looking that Broadcom's lack of even >providing binary drivers, thus keeping their "proprietary" info secret, >that would still allow them to avert the wrath of the FCC and still allow >opensource support. The fact that we still have to see even these >binary drivers suggests that the FCC is not at the heart of their >decision to support open/free software. In fact, my communications with >broadcom do not even allude to the FCC restriction being an issue. Mauro I typed it wrong. I think we're entirely over looking that Broadcom's lack of even providing binary drivers, thus keeping their "proprietary" info secret, that would still allow them to avert the wrath of the FCC and still allow opensource support The fact that we still have to see even these binary drivers suggests that the FCC is not at the heart of their decision to NOT support open/free software
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1108350060.4108.43.camel>