Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-27 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Saturday, 26 July 2003 at 11:00:40 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
 In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 The reason I keep saying that is that nobody knows for sure.  Nobody
 has reverse engineered anything, got sued and won (or lost).  Just

 However, there are one or two cases that are close to relevant working
 their ways through the courts.  Since they are in different districts,
 the answer is different depending on where you live in the US.

Or *whether* you live in the US.  There's a very good reason nobody's
ever been sued for reverse engineering in Australia: it's not illegal
(which may be a different statement from saying it's legal).  That
gets back to the original question: is it legal to use reverse
engineered software in the USA?

Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread Doug White
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:

 : Can they now take they took relevant steps as a defence in a law court?

 That's a very interesting question.

Which might get answered since some industrious folks aligned with a
certain other open source operating system are in the process of reverse
engineering said devices.

-- 
Doug White|  FreeBSD: The Power to Serve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  |  www.FreeBSD.org
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread Wesley Morgan
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Doug White wrote:

 On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:

  : Can they now take they took relevant steps as a defence in a law court?
 
  That's a very interesting question.

 Which might get answered since some industrious folks aligned with a
 certain other open source operating system are in the process of reverse
 engineering said devices.

Would not said software be illegal to distribute in the US?
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Wesley Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Doug White wrote:
: 
:  On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: 
:   : Can they now take they took relevant steps as a defence in a law court?
:  
:   That's a very interesting question.
: 
:  Which might get answered since some industrious folks aligned with a
:  certain other open source operating system are in the process of reverse
:  engineering said devices.
: 
: Would not said software be illegal to distribute in the US?

That's a very interesting question.

The reason I keep saying that is that nobody knows for sure.  Nobody
has reverse engineered anything, got sued and won (or lost).  Just
like the GPL has never been tested in a court of law, reverse
engineering a driver has never been tested.  There have been a few
test cases in other areas, and those may or may not apply to drivers.
Anybody who gives you a definitive answer is full of s*** and is only
speculating based on their legal theories.

However, lots of people have reverse engineered devices in the past,
and those driver are widely available and those people typically
haven't been sued.  Some have, however, and desided to settle rather
than fight.

Warner

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: The reason I keep saying that is that nobody knows for sure.  Nobody
: has reverse engineered anything, got sued and won (or lost).  Just

However, there are one or two cases that are close to relevant working
their ways through the courts.  Since they are in different districts,
the answer is different depending on where you live in the US.

Warner
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-25 Thread M. Warner Losh
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.

Warner
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-25 Thread Brooks Davis
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


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-24 Thread Chris BeHanna
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]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-24 Thread M. Warner Losh
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.

Warner
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-24 Thread Adrian Chadd
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?





Adrian

-- 
Adrian Chaddangryskul learning is bad
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   angryskul it just makes the people around you 
dumber
(angryskul == [EMAIL PROTECTED])angryskul :(

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Kevin Oberman
 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:32:13 +0200
 From: Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Folks,
 
   Okay, so now I just figured out what the ath driver is.  Sigh...
 
   Of course, I find this out through searching for open source 
 drivers for the Broadcom chipset as used in the Linksys WPC54G 
 cardbus device, which I happen to have just bought.
 
 
   I've already done quite a bit of Googling and searching through 
 the archives, and I haven't found anything obviously relevant to the 
 issue of drivers for the Broadcom chipset, at least not anything 
 recent.
 
   I did find a lot of old references to drivers for this chipset in 
 the April timeframe, mostly having to do with people discovering that 
 Linksys was shipping access points  routers using this chipset, 
 using Linux for MIPS and BusyBox, but not providing the drivers 
 themselves under their GPL obligations.
 
 
   Can anyone provide some pointers or links that would bring me 
 up-to-date on the current state of affairs on this subject, 
 especially as it related to FreeBSD or *BSD in general?

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.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Phone: +1 510 486-8634
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Matthew Emmerton
  Folks,
 
  Okay, so now I just figured out what the ath driver is.  Sigh...
 
  Of course, I find this out through searching for open source
  drivers for the Broadcom chipset as used in the Linksys WPC54G
  cardbus device, which I happen to have just bought.
 
 
  I've already done quite a bit of Googling and searching through
  the archives, and I haven't found anything obviously relevant to the
  issue of drivers for the Broadcom chipset, at least not anything
  recent.
 
  I did find a lot of old references to drivers for this chipset in
  the April timeframe, mostly having to do with people discovering that
  Linksys was shipping access points  routers using this chipset,
  using Linux for MIPS and BusyBox, but not providing the drivers
  themselves under their GPL obligations.
 
 
  Can anyone provide some pointers or links that would bring me
  up-to-date on the current state of affairs on this subject,
  especially as it related to FreeBSD or *BSD in general?

 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?

--
Matt Emmerton

___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Kevin Oberman
 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. 

They don't care about a driver doing the right thing. They worry that,
should the information become public, they can be held in violation as
the manufacturer if someone uses that information to move the output
to another frequency. Broadcom uses the secrecy of this information to
claim compliance and without it, they could not make the chip.

Once again, IANAL and I can't speak to the validity of this.
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   Phone: +1 510 486-8634
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Wilko Bulte
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:21:23PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
   Folks,

...

   Can anyone provide some pointers or links that would bring me
   up-to-date on the current state of affairs on this subject,
   especially as it related to FreeBSD or *BSD in general?
 
  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?

Simple: ETOOMANYCORPORATELAWYERS is most likely the culprit.. 

-- 
|   / o / /_  _ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|/|/ / / /(  (_)  Bulte 
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:21:23PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
 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?

It's not sufficent for a manufacture of RF equipment to say don't do
that.  They have to take real, more or less working steps to keep you
from doing things you aren't supposed to do.  This is why the Linksys
link boosters were pulled.  FWIW, there is a solution to this which Sam
used to when implementing ath(4).  That is to implement a binary-only
hardware access layer, ath_hal(4), that keeps you from doing things you
aren't supposed to with the highly programable chips.

-- 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


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature