[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: ipw3945 status
    On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 10:53 -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 03:01:17PM +0200, Kasper Sandberg wrote:
    > > > Because it would involve a moderate rewriting of the driver, and we'd
    > > > have to carry a delta against Intel's code forever.
    > >
    > > without knowing this for sure, dont you think that if a largely changed
    > > version of the driver appeared in the tree, intel may start developing
    > > on that? cause then they wouldnt be the ones that "broke" compliance
    > > with FCC(hah) by not doing binaryonly.
    > It's just as likely that their lawyers would tell them that they would
    > have to pretend that the modifications don't exist at all, and not
    > release any changes for any driver (like OpenBSD's) that bypassed the
    > regulatory daemon. The bigger worry would be if they decided that
    > they couldn't risk supporting their current out-of-tree driver, and
    > couldn't release Linux drivers for their softmac wireless devices in
    > the future.
    i think, that if no driver exists, there would be further incentive for
    people to reverse engineer, as i also believe that if nvidia didnt
    release their closed driver, there would be a project that would have
    created a working driver for it(also supporting 3d)
    > Personally, I don't see why the requirement of an external daemon is
    > really considered that evil. We allow drivers that depend on firmware
    > loaders, don't we? I could imagine a device that required a digitally
    thats entirely different, if some firmware image is loaded into a card,
    thats that, but running a userspace daemon is just entirely different,
    what would happen if intel for some reason stopped supporting earlier
    cards(as hardware manufactureres do after some time), and linux
    kernel/userspace gets some change, preventing the binary daemon from
    running? then what? we have lost. but i do not believe any change can
    really be made, that would mean the existing binary firmware images
    could not be loaded into the hardware.
    > signed message (using RSA) with a challenge/response protocol embedded
    > inside that was necessary to configure said device, which is
    > calculated in userspace and then passed down into the kernel to be
    > installed into the device so that it could function. Do we really
    > want to consider that to be objectionable?
    > - Ted

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-30 17:03    [W:0.021 / U:3.680 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site