On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 17:37, Matthew Palmer wrote: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 11:39:30PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 04:43:48PM -0800, Bruce Perens wrote: > > [..] > > > There are a number of reasons that a device's firmware won't generally > > > be opened to us: > > > > > > 1. The manufacturer's concerns regarding the proprietary nature of > > > information about their device that is below the bus. > > > 2. The fact that misprogramming the device at that level can damage the > > > hardware. > > > 3. They aren't going to want to support more firmware versions than they > > > have to. > > > > And 4. They're not allowed to by regulations, eg wireless hardware > > whose firmware cannot be distributed by FCC rule. > > I'm pretty sure that FUD got killed last time someone (perhaps you, even) > raised it. From memory, the FCC rules only state that there must be a means > for effectively preventing the modification of the firmware used in the > device. Obscurity is not the only means of doing that.
Nor is it a means for doing that (though it's probably good enough for FCC approval). -- Joe Wreschnig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
