Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
On Saturday, 26 July 2003 at 11:00:40 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The reason I keep saying that is that nobody knows for sure. Nobody >> has reverse engineered anything, got sued and won (or lost). Ju

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : The reason I keep saying that is that nobody knows for sure. Nobody : has reverse engineered anything, got sued and won (or lost). Just However, there are one or two cases that are close to relevant workin

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Wesley Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Doug White wrote: : : > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: : > : > > : Can they now take "they took relevant steps" as a defence in a law court? : > > : > > That's a very interestin

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread Wesley Morgan
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Doug White wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > > : Can they now take "they took relevant steps" as a defence in a law court? > > > > That's a very interesting question. > > Which might get answered since some industrious folks aligned with a > certain other

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-26 Thread Doug White
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : Can they now take "they took relevant steps" as a defence in a law court? > > That's a very interesting question. Which might get answered since some industrious folks aligned with a certain other open source operating system are in the process of re

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-25 Thread Brooks Davis
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 06:36:55AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > : > Chris BeHanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-25 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Adrian Chadd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: : > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > Chris BeHanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : > : Can't they just redact that information from the spec.? : > : >

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-24 Thread Adrian Chadd
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Chris BeHanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : Can't they just redact that information from the spec.? > > Typically no. Even in a redacted spec it would be painfully obvious > what to do. Also, differ

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-24 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Chris BeHanna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : Can't they just redact that information from the spec.? Typically no. Even in a redacted spec it would be painfully obvious what to do. Also, different regulatory domains have different frequencies that a

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-24 Thread Chris BeHanna
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > From: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:21:23 -0400 > > > > > The folks at Broadcom have not been willing to release any information > > > on their 800.11g chips for fear of violating FCC regs. The required > > > NDA

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:21:23PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > Why would Broadcom be scared? Obviously it's the _driver_ that controls the > power/freq output of the chip, so the responsibility of staying within FCC > regs is that of the driver authors. Of course, the "no warranty" aspects o

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Wilko Bulte
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 06:21:23PM -0400, Matthew Emmerton wrote: > > > Folks, ... > > > Can anyone provide some pointers or links that would bring me > > > up-to-date on the current state of affairs on this subject, > > > especially as it related to FreeBSD or *BSD in general? > > > > The folks

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Kevin Oberman
> From: "Matthew Emmerton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 18:21:23 -0400 > > > The folks at Broadcom have not been willing to release any information > > on their 800.11g chips for fear of violating FCC regs. The required > > NDA would prohibit the release of the source. You can prog

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Matthew Emmerton
> > Folks, > > > > Okay, so now I just figured out what the "ath" driver is. Sigh... > > > > Of course, I find this out through searching for open source > > drivers for the Broadcom chipset as used in the Linksys WPC54G > > cardbus device, which I happen to have just bought. > > > > > > I've alre

Re: We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Kevin Oberman
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:32:13 +0200 > From: Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Folks, > > Okay, so now I just figured out what the "ath" driver is. Sigh... > > Of course, I find this out through searching for open source > drivers for the Broadcom

We have ath, now what about Broadcom?

2003-07-23 Thread Brad Knowles
Folks, Okay, so now I just figured out what the "ath" driver is. Sigh... Of course, I find this out through searching for open source drivers for the Broadcom chipset as used in the Linksys WPC54G cardbus device, which I happen to have just bought. I've already done quite a bit of Googling