There's so much going on in this discussion, I don't know where to begin.
Something that's getting lost in this hullabaloo about the binary-only
module is that Sam Leffler's driver is really good work. Coming with it
is a really nice 802.11 framework written by Atsushi Onoe for NetBSD,
with several improvements by Sam. The 802.11 framework is the base that
no fewer than three 802.11 drivers are built on in NetBSD, with a fourth
coming soon, and a fifth foreseen. Meanwhile, Linux 802.11 development
remains fragmented. *Embrace* that 802.11 framework.
* * *
A much more productive response to the binary-only Hardware Abstraction
Layer than bitching about how loading it defiles Linux, is to write the
Layer's open-source replacement. I estimate it will take 3-6 months of
intensive effort by two or three sharp programmers.
* * *
I think that if instead of getting all indignant about the rule concerning
non-modifiable software in the FCC's SDR rules, the open-source community
would engage positively with the FCC, maybe forming some body to set
standards for open-source software that does tuning, power control,
or change of modulation, then the FCC will relax a little. The point
has been made before: the FCC cannot keep a determined person from
building and operating interference-makers. And as far as I can tell, the
FCC does *not* expend a lot of energy to keep electronic components from
determined radio trouble-makers. Instead, with its rules, the FCC tries
to protect *casual users* of electronic devices from *unwittingly* producing
inteference. I think that if the open-source world can show the FCC
standards for ensuring that casual users of open-source software will
not unwittingly produce interference, then the FCC cannot reasonably
withhold licenses for open-source SDRs. It will permit them.
Stamping our feet and shouting "free the source!" until we're blue in
the face, however, is just *not* gonna work, 'k?
* * *
Now some remarks about the SDR rules, in-line:
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:06:59PM -0700, J?rgen Botz wrote:
> 2.1 Terms and definition.
>
> (c) Software defined radio. A radio that includes a transmitter
> in which the operating parameters of frequency range, modulation
> type or maximum output power (either radiated or conducted) can
> be altered by making a change in software without making any
> changes to hardware components that affect the radio frequency
> emissions.
By these definitions, every single 802.11a, .11b, or .11g radio ever
manufactured is as much an SDR as Atheros is. However, the FCC does not
hold all those radios to 2.932 paragraph (e), below.
> 2.932 Modification of equipment.
>
> (e) Manufacturers must take steps to ensure that only software
> that has been approved with a software defined radio can be loaded
> into such a radio. The software must not allow the user to operate
> the transmitter with frequencies, output power, modulation types
> or other parameters outside of those that were approved.
> Manufacturers may use authentication codes or any other means to
> meet these requirements, and must describe the methods in their
> application for equipment authorization.
I think the reason every 802.11b radio is not held to 2.932(e) is that
only Atheros and Broadcom *declared* their radios to be SDRs in the
application for certification. The following text from an FCC Order
means to me that the FCC only requires the software security measures
if you declare your device is an SDR in your app.
17. We will require the applicant to identify a software defined
radio at the time an original application is filed in order for it
to be eligible for Class III permissive changes. This will allow the
application reviewer to determine which requirements the equipment
must meet, such as the security features and labeling discussed
below, and whether the applicant has demonstrated compliance
with them. When applying for a Class III permissive change, the
applicant must reference the initial declaration. We decline to
establish a mechanism to reclassify previously approved devices
as software defined radios. We find that such an approach would
unnecessarily complicate the application process. Furthermore,
additional supplementary information for existing equipment would
have to be filed in any event. We note, however, that this approach
would not prohibit the filing of a new request for an authorization
as a software defined radio, permitting the device to be subsequently
eligible for Class III permissive changes.
(The text is taken from the FCC Order that created
the SDR rules. I have put a copy of the Order at
<http://che.ojctech.com/~dyoung/public/fcc-sdr.pdf>. BTW, I cannot find
anywhere that the requirement the FCC Order states was actually codified.)
Atheros and Broadcom may have preferred to declare as SDRs, since they
probably benefit from eligibility for Class III permissive changes. Also,
the FCC may force their certification as an SDR out of concern for
software mods that would let one interfere with radars operating in the
5GHz region.
Dave
--
David Young OJC Technologies
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
--
general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/>
[un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
