Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 13:02:26 +0800 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom? Message-ID: <20030725050226.GF41445@skywalker.creative.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20030724.221744.66191711.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20030723223007.AD92C5D07@ptavv.es.net> <20030724231947.I30706@topperwein.pennasoft.com> <20030724.221744.66191711.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Adrian -- Adrian Chadd <angryskul> learning is bad <adrian@FreeBSD.org> <angryskul> it just makes the people around you dumber (angryskul == alfred@irc) <angryskul> :(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030725050226.GF41445>