On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:34:32 -0500 Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: > Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > "We would really love to be more permissive, but we cannot, 'cause > > that other evil guy forbids us." > > > > As I keep reading answers like this, I'm less and less convinced of > > their good faith... [...] > For some companies I would agree, but as has been said, intel has been > opensourcing a lot lately, And is getting good publicity for this: as a consequence, I think they should act likewise on other fronts... [...] > For a lot of wifi cards (dunno about Intel's) it's regulatory - they > can't sell cards that can be easily modified to exceed FCC limits, so > they limit it in a binary firmware. If they gave away the source, > people could easily modify the card to exceed the legal output power, > and thus they can't give away source. This sounds like another cheap excuse: I cannot believe that the law really says that *Intel* is responsible if *I* modify an Intel WiFi card so that it exceeds regulatory limits... If there indeed is a law like this in some jurisdiction, well, the law should be changed ASAP. Intel should be able to sell easily-reprogrammable WiFi cards: if *I* modify one card and exceed regulatory limits, I should be seen as the *sole* responsible. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpjANk5claZ3.pgp
Description: PGP signature