From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261832AbTD2Nf4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:35:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262009AbTD2Nf4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:35:56 -0400 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:63477 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261832AbTD2Nfz (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:35:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3EAE8296.9010904@gmx.net> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:48:06 +0200 From: Carl-Daniel Hailfinger User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2) Gecko/20021126 X-Accept-Language: de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: root@chaos.analogic.com CC: Martin List-Petersen , "David S. Miller" , bas.mevissen@hetnet.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM4306/BCM2050 support References: <1051596982.3eae18b640303@roadrunner.hulpsystems.net> <1051614381.21135.5.camel@rth.ninka.net> <3EAE644A.2000101@gmx.net> <1051618337.3eae6c218bd3c@roadrunner.hulpsystems.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.71.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Richard B. Johnson wrote: > On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, Martin List-Petersen wrote: > > >>Citat Carl-Daniel Hailfinger : >> >> >>>>So don't blame the vendors on this one, several of them would love >>>>to publish drivers public for their cards, but simply cannot with >>>>upsetting federal regulators. >>> >>>/me wants binary only driver for these cards to build opensource driver >>>with ability to set "interesting" frequency range. >>> >> >>It's there for Windows :) So ... > > > Contrary to popular opinion, there is no FCC regulation prohibiting > one from receiving some particular frequency. There is, however, a Contrary to popular opinion, not everybody lives in the US. Here in Germany, receiving some particular frequencies (e.g. those used by the police) was prohibited a few years ago (I don't know exactly if they changed the law). The argument was that some receiver types emitted a weak signal on the frequency they were listening to (and could be tuned to become a private radio station) which could interfere with the low-power police devices. However, it was simply not sensible to prohibit all radios, so they were constained to a specific frequency range. Regards, Carl-Daniel -- http://www.hailfinger.org/