Re: ipw3945 status

Kasper Sandberg
2006-07-31T01:17:04Z

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 01:23 +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Monday 31 July 2006 00:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> [snip]
> > And... Intel will not even tell you WTF that daemon does. They claim
> > it is for FCC, but it seems to be doing more than that. So maybe I'm
> > not _that_ paranoid.
>
> Agreed, from what Matthew's said it seems like the daemon is being used to
> hide intellectual property, not something we should really be encouraging.
>
> I think the title "regulatory daemon" has multiple meanings, it REGULATES your
> frequencies to FCC specs, it REGULATES your wireless card's power and
> temperature levels, and it REGULATES your right to use the hardware ;-)
>
> Ultimately the question remains, will we open this can of worms by accepting
> drivers that depend on proprietary software (i.e. they will not function at
> all without it). I'm fairly sure the answer should be "No".
I entirely agree that this should not be merged, those will accept these
kindof things, can use intels out of tree driver.

i sincerely hope for a forked/rewritten driver which does not depend on
closed userspace daemons.
>