On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 07:33:05AM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:17:50AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > Folks, please stop these stupid ideas. There's a free driver, let's improve
> > and merge it. That's a thousand times better than any half-free driver
> >
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:17:50AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Folks, please stop these stupid ideas. There's a free driver, let's improve
> and merge it. That's a thousand times better than any half-free driver
> with buggy binary blobs.
I presume you mean the ath-driver.org stuff? I'm
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 03:04:22PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:58:17AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> > David Hollis wrote:
>
> > >I don't know the details of the Atheros chip to
> > >know if it might be possible to generate a firmware that users would
> > >have to inst
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, ext Simon Barber wrote:
> In order to get FCC certification the manufacturer must ensure there is
> no easy way for the user to tune to illegal frequencies.
FCC verifies that a product running a certain software follows FCC rules
in terms of frequencies, power level, signal ba
Hello John, Samuel,
> Well, at least part of the answer is "I'm not done yet". I am still
> collecting code and figuring-out how to get it all into one tree.
>
> But, the main answer has to do with the intellectual property
> (i.e. copyright) issues concerning the HAL. My understanding is
> tha
Simon Barber wrote:
In order to get FCC certification the manufacturer must ensure there is
no easy way for the user to tune to illegal frequencies. Broadcom has
done their job - it was not easy to reverse engineer their driver. Now
the cat is out of the bag. The open source driver is not illegal
John W. Linville wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:58:17AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
David Hollis wrote:
I don't know the details of the Atheros chip to
know if it might be possible to generate a firmware that users would
have to install in /lib/firmware and let the driver load it up. If so
Ben Greear wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 00:10, you wrote:
No doubt. It also may be illegal (IANAL) to provide an open-source
HAL in the US due to FCC restrictions because it gives users
an easy way to screw up frequencies not legally available to
them. That seems
On Friday 27 January 2006 01:04, you wrote:
> In order to get FCC certification the manufacturer must ensure there is
> no easy way for the user to tune to illegal frequencies. Broadcom has
> done their job - it was not easy to reverse engineer their driver. Now
> the cat is out of the bag. The ope
ry 26, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Ben Greear
Cc: David Hollis; John W. Linville; Samuel Ortiz; netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: wireless-2.6 status (25 January 2006)
On Friday 27 January 2006 00:10, you wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
Cum 27 Oca 2006 01:45 tarihinde, Michael Buesch şunları yazmıştı:
> On Friday 27 January 2006 00:10, you wrote:
> > Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> > >>If someone has a reverse-engineered HAL that might could
> > >>be used as well.
> > >
> > > Fro
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 00:10, you wrote:
No doubt. It also may be illegal (IANAL) to provide an open-source
HAL in the US due to FCC restrictions because it gives users
an easy way to screw up frequencies not legally available to
them. That seems to be the primary r
On Friday 27 January 2006 00:10, you wrote:
> Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> >>If someone has a reverse-engineered HAL that might could
> >>be used as well.
> >
> >
> > From a quick look at the HAL asm code (mips-le), I think
> > symbol names
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
If someone has a reverse-engineered HAL that might could
be used as well.
From a quick look at the HAL asm code (mips-le), I think
symbol names are obfuscated. So reverse engineering
is Not Easy (tm).
No doubt. It
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> If someone has a reverse-engineered HAL that might could
> be used as well.
From a quick look at the HAL asm code (mips-le), I think
symbol names are obfuscated. So reverse engineering
is Not Easy (tm).
--
Greetings Michael.
pgp14dkWxsSrf.
John W. Linville wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:58:17AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
David Hollis wrote:
I don't know the details of the Atheros chip to
know if it might be possible to generate a firmware that users would
have to install in /lib/firmware and let the driver load it up. If so
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:58:17AM -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
> David Hollis wrote:
> >I don't know the details of the Atheros chip to
> >know if it might be possible to generate a firmware that users would
> >have to install in /lib/firmware and let the driver load it up. If so,
> >that would be t
David Hollis wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
It appears to be the case. It might be technically possible to
hack up madwifi as a module w/out the HAL and force end-users to
download and install the HAL (and taint their kernel) to have a useful
setup. That would go
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 11:04 -0800, Ben Greear wrote:
>
> It appears to be the case. It might be technically possible to
> hack up madwifi as a module w/out the HAL and force end-users to
> download and install the HAL (and taint their kernel) to have a useful
> setup. That would go against much
John W. Linville wrote:
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 07:27:08PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, ext John W. Linville wrote:
I still have a number of other branches in the wireless-2.6 tree.
I was wondering what's the reason for not having the madwifi stack there
as well. I hav
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 07:27:08PM +0200, Samuel Ortiz wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, ext John W. Linville wrote:
>
> > I still have a number of other branches in the wireless-2.6 tree.
> I was wondering what's the reason for not having the madwifi stack there
> as well. I haven't seen anyone send
Hi John,
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, ext John W. Linville wrote:
> I still have a number of other branches in the wireless-2.6 tree.
> I am using those branches to collect out of stream drivers and
> developments such as the softmac code and the alternative 802.11
> stack from Devicescape.
I was wonderi
All,
This note is just to let you know what is going-on w/ the wireless-2.6
tree, now available here:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-2.6.git
You may have seen the pull requests I have sent to Jeff Garzik.
I am actively merging patches for the code already
23 matches
Mail list logo
