[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: TI and the community's request
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: TI and the community's request
- From: Mark Pecaut <mark_(_at_)_pecaut_(_dot_)_us>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:59:51 -0400
- Mail-followup-to: Mark Pecaut <mark_(_at_)_pecaut_(_dot_)_us>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 07:13:09AM -0600, Tobias Weingartner wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 27, Marcus Watts wrote:
> > One thing I've been wondering about some of these wireless companies is
> > how much of the difficulty is due to chipsets that depend on software
> > to meet FCC and other governmental regulations. That is, these things
> > are radio transmitters, and as such they have to transmit on-band, at
> > regulated power, using an allowed protocol, &etc. If the firmware in
> > the card is actually deciding these things, then the wireless card
> > maker may have a real responsibility to make sure the card can't do the
> > bad things -- and they actually can't legally trust the customer or
> > programmer with interfaces that let them get break the logic.
Ok, the developers (and us) are asking for a license change for
the 'binary blob', not for the source for the firmware, right?
So its not like the binary blob is going to be modified to perform
hostile operations with the card, it's just to allow free
redistribution of that binary blob.
The argument that a license change would allow everyone to jam
police frequencies doesn't really hold water because the only
thing we are asking for in this case is a license for free
redistribution for the firmware. People can already get the firmware
on CD or probably from the vendor's website. They just can't get
it any other way (yet).
Am I correct?