| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FCC? BS!FCC? BS!Posted Dec 1, 2008 17:01 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46)In reply to: FCC? by dmarti Parent article: Sam Leffler releases HAL source
As someone whose day job involves writing drivers for various wireless network devices, I've always maintained that the "we can't release code/specifications due to FCC regulations" excuse was utter BS.
Atheros's (very welcome) about-face (first ath9k, then ath5k, and now madwifi-hal) leaves me feeling quite vindicated.
(Log in to post comments)
FCC? BS! Posted Dec 1, 2008 20:22 UTC (Mon) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] As someone whose day job involves writing drivers for various wireless network devices, I've always maintained that the "we can't release code/specifications due to FCC regulations" excuse was utter BS. Well, that's refreshing to hear. Perhaps this notion (and Atheros's change of heart) will dissuade other Wi-fi manufacturers from hiding behind that (non-)excuse.
Not really 100% true. Posted Dec 1, 2008 21:41 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] As someone whose day job involves writing drivers for various wireless network devices, I've always maintained that the "we can't release code/specifications due to FCC regulations" excuse was utter BS. Reality is somwhat more complex, of course. FCC regulations are pretty vague but if FCC has an issue with you it's big deal. Given benefits and drawbacks someone decided that to keep source secret is good defence. Later s/he was overriden - someone from the top said "yes, I know what I'm doing - this is not needed". That's how corporations do such things. I seriously doubt actual members of FCC were involved...
Not really 100% true. Posted Dec 2, 2008 0:11 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
He didn't say they were. He said someone at <wifi company> made the decision that it was safer to not release the code for the rare chance it would get them in trouble with the FCC because that trouble can be very dangerous to the survival of the company. Later someone higher up said it was an acceptable risk because the risk was so minuscule resulting in the code being released.
|
|
||||||||||||