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.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] I was raised by a pack of wild corn dogs. _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"