On 25 November 2013 11:28, Ben Greear <gree...@candelatech.com> wrote: > On 11/25/2013 11:19 AM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> You need to be a big customer that requires that QCA open up the >> firmware to open source, much like what's driven ath9k support. >> >> I heartily encourage this. > > If it's just money, maybe they could name their price and see > if someone will pay it :) > > Either way, QCA seems more open to sharing firmware than anyone > else, so it could be worse.
IT's the irony of the situation. If they're lead by their customer requirements then all it will take is a couple of customers requiring the firmware source be open sourced and open licenced. It will kick off another regulatory discussion, but besides that, it'll make things happen. -adiran _______________________________________________ ath9k-devel mailing list ath9k-devel@lists.ath9k.org https://lists.ath9k.org/mailman/listinfo/ath9k-devel
