From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S932374AbWG3R0E@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932374AbWG3R0E (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:26:04 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932376AbWG3R0D
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:26:03 -0400
Received: from pfepa.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.235]:62858 "EHLO
	pfepa.post.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932374AbWG3R0C
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:26:02 -0400
Subject: Re: ipw3945 status
From: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@metanurb.dk>
To: James Courtier-Dutton <James@superbug.co.uk>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>, Jan Dittmer <jdi@l4x.org>,
       Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>, Jirka Lenost Benc <jbenc@suse.cz>,
       kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       ipw2100-admin@linux.intel.com
In-Reply-To: <44CCE521.7090705@superbug.co.uk>
References: <20060730104042.GE1920@elf.ucw.cz>
	 <20060730112827.GA25540@srcf.ucam.org> <44CC993B.6070309@l4x.org>
	 <20060730114722.GA26046@srcf.ucam.org>
	 <1154264478.13635.22.camel@localhost>  <44CCE521.7090705@superbug.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:25:37 +0200
Message-Id: <1154280337.13635.38.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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
>