On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 09:39 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
That said, it is still extremely late for F-14 consideration.
Those interested in seeing this driver in some later F-14 kernel
update or in F-15 or beyond are strongly encouraged to take-up
this driver's cause in getting it migrated
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:20 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based
on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the
regulations. That assumption is
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 14:38 +0200, drago01 wrote:
But where do you draw the line?
A crack-inspired judge might argue that the fact that regulation is
done in software is a problem regardless of the drivers license /
nature.
There's actually some merit in that position. But still there's very
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:13:25AM -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 12:41 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 13:20 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based
on the notion that a binary driver
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote:
... snip ...
Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on telephone
communications frequencies either. And the CFR advice and FCC
implementation is to require that designers of radio equipment make
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters
jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote:
Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on
telephone communications
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:53 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org
wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters
jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote:
Well, the US
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 16:53 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters
jonat...@jonmasters.orgwrote:
Well, the US law of the land
Hi,
On 09/14/2010 01:31 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though.
That's still true of the b43 firmware for older
Hans de Goede wrote on 15.09.2010 08:31:
On 09/14/2010 01:31 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though.
That's
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 08:31 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 09/14/2010 01:31 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:07:50 +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Which OEMs care enough about Linux support
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based
on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the
regulations. That assumption is demonstrably false.
In the lawyers' defense, lots of things
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based
on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the
regulations. That
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 06:39:48PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 09/14/2010 10:13 AM, John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:09:58 -0400,
John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com wrote:
AIUI, they main technical reason that they were finally willing to
open-up was that they were able to add some regulatory enforcement code
in their firmware. The added firmware functionality required more
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 08:49:46AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:09:58 -0400,
John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com wrote:
AIUI, they main technical reason that they were finally willing to
open-up was that they were able to add some regulatory enforcement code
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, pbrobin...@gmail.com
pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they
would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not
seen any comment as to the state of them other than they
pbrobin...@gmail.com pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they
would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not
seen any comment as to the state of them other than they already
support mac80211. These are
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
pbrobin...@gmail.com pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they
would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not
seen any comment
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though.
That's still true of the b43 firmware for older (pre-802.11n) devices,
but the firmware to go with
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be wrong though.
That's still true of the b43
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM, John W. Linville linvi...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say
On 09/14/2010 08:33 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the
norm for vendor code dumps.
It is nevertheless a massive step forward. I heard OEM systems were
favouring other, even slightly more expensive wireless cards because of
the
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/14/2010 08:33 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the
norm for vendor code dumps.
It is nevertheless a massive step forward. I heard OEM systems were
favouring other, even slightly
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part?
Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now.
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services
On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part?
Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now.
I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified.
Rahul
--
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:31 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part?
Seriously. I will go buy their stuff
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/14/2010 08:33 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the update. That's what I suspected as it seems to be the
norm for vendor code dumps.
It is nevertheless a massive step forward. I heard OEM systems were
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 01:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/15/2010 12:49 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:04:04PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Which OEMs care enough about Linux support to use a more expensive part?
Seriously. I will go buy their stuff right now.
I read that HP was doing this but haven't verified.
Ones who pre-load Linux could presumably calculate that shipping a
better supported chip may cost them slightly more initially but save
them maintenance headaches and hence eventually work out cheaper, so
that would be Dell and HP. I think
On 09/14/2010 10:13 AM, John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:31:44PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 00:40 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
IIRC they require a firmware blob that has a license that we cannot
distribute
unlike say the Intel firmwares. I could be
Ric Wheeler (rwhee...@redhat.com) said:
Can we use the firmware that they have for the existing broadcom wireless
driver?
'No' is what I've been told.
Bill
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
34 matches
Mail list logo
