Tnx guys for all the replies. Now I see the actual situation with regulatory and FCC and the ath9k development a little bit clearer.
Best regards JoeSemler Am 25.08.2011 um 10:15 schrieb Adrian Chadd <adr...@freebsd.org>: > On 25 August 2011 15:43, Joe Semler <josef.sem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hy guys, >> I'm following this discussion according regulatory, frequency and power >> limitation now for a while in this forum. Oc it's a good policy to have a >> clear regulatory for ath9k and for our openWRT. But is it not a little bit >> to much regulatory? >> My opinion is, that it's in the responsibility of the operator to fulfill >> the law. > > [snip] > > I'm going to stay out of that discussion, because it's rather .. well, > delicate. :) > >> Wold be really great when we could find to such a regulatory. It would help >> a lot of radio amateurs to use openWRT instead of airOS for HAMNET. > > For the minority of users that are licenced to operate at different > frequencies and power restrictions, I think the best bet is to try to > build some relations with the vendor(s) in question (eg Atheros) and > talk directly with some of the developers there. > > It's annoying, but do you really want to see a proliferation of people > rolling out drivers which let users select frequencies outside the > regulatory limits? Then the next revision of hardware suddenly will > likely stop you from doing it. Then everyone loses. > > > > Adrian _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
