From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [Announce] Intel PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 17:10:29 +0000
Message-ID: <20060227171029.GA763@infradead.org>
References: <43FF88E6.6020603@linux.intel.com> <20060225084139.GB22109@infradead.org> <1140915482.23286.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	James Ketrenos <jketreno@linux.intel.com>,
	NetDev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	okir@suse.de
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751503AbWB0RKe@vger.kernel.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1140915482.23286.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:58:02AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2006-02-25 at 08:41 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > the regualatory problems are not true.  
> 
> They are although the binary interpretation isn't AFAIK from law but
> from lawyers. The same is actually true in much of the EU. The actual
> requirement is that the transmitting device must be reasonably
> tamperproof. Some of the lawyers have decided that for a software radio
> tamperproof means "binary".

Exactly.  There's no strong requirement, it's just over-zealous corporate
lawyers.  That's why we need to push Intel strongly here.