| |||||||||||||
Toward a free Atheros driverToward a free Atheros driverPosted Nov 17, 2006 22:29 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698)In reply to: Toward a free Atheros driver by thyrsus Parent article: Toward a free Atheros driver
If someone modified the code such that the device violated part 15, the party that modified the code in that manner would be the legally responsible party. No one else would be liable unless it could be shown that they "induced" the violation.
IANAL, though, so YMMV.
(Log in to post comments)
Toward a free Atheros driver Posted Nov 19, 2006 20:51 UTC (Sun) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link] I'm not a lawyer either... but I was a ham. The issue is Part 15 type acceptance. In the case of a software-controlled radio, the firmware that controls the card would be part of the type-accepted unit -- and whatever part of that might run on the host PC would thereby *also* be part of it.
No, this is not authoritative with citations, either, but hopefully, it at least clarifies what people are asserting is the issue.
Toward a free Atheros driver Posted Nov 19, 2006 21:40 UTC (Sun) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] Sure, but if Atheros ships a Windows driver with the card, and the combination has part 15 type acceptance, that doesn't make them liable if someone else writes different software for it.Atheros' claim that this is why they can't publish the documentation on their chipset doesn't wash either. There's a long history of people modifying radios to operate outside factory spec, either in compliance with the regulations or not. The fact that schematics of radios and documentation on the circuitry was published by the manufacturer of the radio didn't make them liable for the third-party modifications.
|
|||||||||||||