On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 06:36:55AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>             Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> : >             Chris BeHanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : > :     Can't they just redact that information from the spec.?
> : > 
> : > Typically no.  Even in a redacted spec it would be painfully obvious
> : > what to do.  Also, different regulatory domains have different
> : > frequencies that are real no-nos in other regulatory domains and
> : > they'd need to document how to properly generate the RF in both
> : > cases.
> : 
> : So, assuming that there's at least one person smart enough to reverse
> : engineer the binary driver but stupid enough to release it publicly,
> : what happens to the manufacturer there?
> : 
> : Can they now take "they took relevant steps" as a defence in a law court?
> That's a very interesting question.

I would guess that if there were wide-spread problems, they might cancel
the license for the devices until they deliberatly broke the firmware
interfaces, but it's probably the case that they aren't going to hold
the manufacture responsible for blatent, high-effort misuse of the
product even if they technical could.  On the other hand these modern,
programmable radios are probably more of an issue then the current
problems with illegal amplification or overly high-gain antennas.

-- Brooks

Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to