Denis Vlasenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> What it can do? In particular, can it:
-> * send packets with arbitrary contents? In particular, packets
-> shorter than 3-address 802.11 header? packets with WEP bit set?
-> Does it allow to do WEP encoding by host instead of hal?
-> Any weird
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> > the problem with openbsd version of the hal is that it is - sorry to
-> > say that - fundamentally broken, at least it was last time I was
-> > checking.
->
-> It's better than nothing, that is, it worked for us when we gave it a
-> try. And it
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 11:16, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -> The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
> -> copyright/trade secret issues might be worked around by basing the
> -> work on the OpenBSD version of that driver (and
* Mateusz Berezecki:
> Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -> The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
> -> copyright/trade secret issues might be worked around by basing the
> -> work on the OpenBSD version of that driver (and someone is actually
> -> working on
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
-> copyright/trade secret issues might be worked around by basing the
-> work on the OpenBSD version of that driver (and someone is actually
-> working on that).
the problem with openbsd
* Jeff Garzik:
> There is still the open question of whether this is legal enough to
> include in the kernel :(
Are you referring to FTC issues, or potential copyright/trade secret
issues?
The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
copyright/trade secret issues might be
* Jeff Garzik:
There is still the open question of whether this is legal enough to
include in the kernel :(
Are you referring to FTC issues, or potential copyright/trade secret
issues?
The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
copyright/trade secret issues might be
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
- copyright/trade secret issues might be worked around by basing the
- work on the OpenBSD version of that driver (and someone is actually
- working on that).
the problem with openbsd
* Mateusz Berezecki:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
- copyright/trade secret issues might be worked around by basing the
- work on the OpenBSD version of that driver (and someone is actually
- working on that).
On Wednesday 31 August 2005 11:16, Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- The FTC issues are shared by many (most?) wireless drivers. The
- copyright/trade secret issues might be worked around by basing the
- work on the OpenBSD version of that driver (and someone
Florian Weimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- the problem with openbsd version of the hal is that it is - sorry to
- say that - fundamentally broken, at least it was last time I was
- checking.
-
- It's better than nothing, that is, it worked for us when we gave it a
- try. And it seems to be
Denis Vlasenko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- What it can do? In particular, can it:
- * send packets with arbitrary contents? In particular, packets
- shorter than 3-address 802.11 header? packets with WEP bit set?
- Does it allow to do WEP encoding by host instead of hal?
- Any weird
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 19:11 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Ralink Tech (www.ralink.com.tw) took a design decision to incorporate
> the firmware into an EEPROM on-board, allowing their driver to be
> GPL'd
Binary only firmware and firmware loading is perfectly compatible with
the GPL, as long
On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 19:11 +0100, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
Ralink Tech (www.ralink.com.tw) took a design decision to incorporate
the firmware into an EEPROM on-board, allowing their driver to be
GPL'd
Binary only firmware and firmware loading is perfectly compatible with
the GPL, as long as
Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
Daniel J Blueman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
->
-> There is a good chance the rt2x00 driver will get into the kernel tree
-> in time, since there is no firmware to upload - Ralink Tech
-> (www.ralink.com.tw) took a design decision to incorporate the firmware
-> into an
Daniel J Blueman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
->
-> There is a good chance the rt2x00 driver will get into the kernel tree
-> in time, since there is no firmware to upload - Ralink Tech
-> (www.ralink.com.tw) took a design decision to incorporate the firmware
-> into an EEPROM on-board, allowing
Daniel J Blueman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
- There is a good chance the rt2x00 driver will get into the kernel tree
- in time, since there is no firmware to upload - Ralink Tech
- (www.ralink.com.tw) took a design decision to incorporate the firmware
- into an EEPROM on-board, allowing their
Mateusz Berezecki wrote:
Daniel J Blueman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-
- There is a good chance the rt2x00 driver will get into the kernel tree
- in time, since there is no firmware to upload - Ralink Tech
- (www.ralink.com.tw) took a design decision to incorporate the firmware
- into an EEPROM
From: Jon Jahren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:15:43 +0200
> Hello, I'm new to the mailling list, and couldn't find any traces of
> discussing this anywhere. I was wondering why neither the atheros driver
> http://madwifi.sourceforge.net, or the rt2x00 driver
>
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jon Jahren wrote:
> Hello, I'm new to the mailling list, and couldn't find any traces of
> discussing this anywhere. I was wondering why neither the atheros driver
> http://madwifi.sourceforge.net, or the rt2x00 driver
> http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com /wiki/index.php/Main_Page
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jon Jahren wrote:
> Hello, I'm new to the mailling list, and couldn't find any traces of
> discussing this anywhere. I was wondering why neither the atheros driver
> http://madwifi.sourceforge.net, or the rt2x00 driver
> http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jon Jahren wrote:
Hello, I'm new to the mailling list, and couldn't find any traces of
discussing this anywhere. I was wondering why neither the atheros driver
http://madwifi.sourceforge.net, or the rt2x00 driver
http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page is
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Jon Jahren wrote:
Hello, I'm new to the mailling list, and couldn't find any traces of
discussing this anywhere. I was wondering why neither the atheros driver
http://madwifi.sourceforge.net, or the rt2x00 driver
http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com /wiki/index.php/Main_Page is
From: Jon Jahren [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:15:43 +0200
Hello, I'm new to the mailling list, and couldn't find any traces of
discussing this anywhere. I was wondering why neither the atheros driver
http://madwifi.sourceforge.net, or the rt2x00 driver
24 matches
Mail list logo
