On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote:

> > From: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:21:23 -0400
> >
> > > 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?
> The logic is simple. the FCC hold the manufacturer responsible for
> improper RF from any product. The Broadcom chip makes it easy to
> generate illegal RF if you know where to poke.

    Can't they just redact that information from the spec.?

Chris BeHanna
Software Engineer                   (Remove "bogus" before responding.)
I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to