Re: ipw3945 status

[Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>]

On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 17:58 +0100, James Courtier-Dutton wrote:
> Kasper Sandberg wrote:
> >> Because it would involve a moderate rewriting of the driver, and we'd 
> >> have to carry a delta against Intel's code forever.
> > without knowing this for sure, dont you think that if a largely changed
> > version of the driver appeared in the tree, intel may start developing
> > on that? cause then they wouldnt be the ones that "broke" compliance
> > with FCC(hah) by not doing binaryonly.
> > 
> 
> Where can I find this FCC law that seems to be crippling open source 
> wlan development?
> 
> I am not from the USA, so I don't have to comply with the FCC. Could we 
> make a non-crippled totally open source driver for use by people outside 
> the USA?
as with encryption, arent some of the encryption stuff widely used in
the opensource community also illegal in the united states?

> 
> For example, here in the UK one can own radios that can transmit on any 
> frequency one likes, but if you actually press the TX button without a 
> the appropriate License, you break the law.
im quite certain this is also the case in for example Denmark.
> 
> James
>