From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 15:30:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99CEC37B401 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:30:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freebie.xs4all.nl (freebie.xs4all.nl [213.84.32.253]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D010A43F3F for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:30:33 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: from freebie.xs4all.nl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freebie.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NMUUxd063488; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:30:30 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl) Received: (from wkb@localhost) by freebie.xs4all.nl (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6NMUULc063487; Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:30:30 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:30:29 +0200 From: Wilko Bulte To: Matthew Emmerton Message-ID: <20030723223029.GA63469@freebie.xs4all.nl> References: <20030723220757.49A565D07@ptavv.es.net> <009e01c35168$c0738270$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009e01c35168$c0738270$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-OS: FreeBSD 4.8-STABLE X-PGP: finger wilko@freebsd.org cc: FreeBSD-CURRENT Mailing List Subject: Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:30:35 -0000 On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:21:23PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > > > Folks, ... > > > Can anyone provide some pointers or links that would bring me > > > up-to-date on the current state of affairs on this subject, > > > especially as it related to FreeBSD or *BSD in general? > > > > The folks at Broadcom have not been willing to release any information > > on their 800.11g chips for fear of violating FCC regs. The required > > NDA would prohibit the release of the source. You can program > > both the transmit power and frequency if you have this. (I make no > > claim as to whether their concerns have any validity.) > > > > For that reason there has been no open-source support for these chips. > > Why would Broadcom be scared? Obviously it's the _driver_ that controls the > power/freq output of the chip, so the responsibility of staying within FCC > regs is that of the driver authors. Of course, the "no warranty" aspects of > open source drivers turns a blind eye to liability, but would things really > come back to Broadcom? Simple: ETOOMANYCORPORATELAWYERS is most likely the culprit.. -- | / o / /_ _ wilko@FreeBSD.org |/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte