| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
FCC?FCC?Posted Dec 1, 2008 18:31 UTC (Mon) by schwaang (guest, #19827)In reply to: FCC? by dmarti Parent article: Sam Leffler releases HAL source It may have helped that when the FCC issued a rule on software-defined radios last year, the Software Freedom Law Center made a legal argument for why this doesn't restrict FOSS made for SDRs. However, I distinctly recall an Intel employee speaking at a FOSS conference (probably linux.conf.au last year) blaming the equivalent of the FCC in Japan for their not releasing wifi source code. That was a new one on me, and I expect there will always be some country somewhere with laws that provide that excuse, for companies that want to use it.
(Log in to post comments)
tentative summary of argument Posted Dec 2, 2008 11:17 UTC (Tue) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
If I may be so bold as to summarise said legal argument even though I've only skimmed through it and IANAL:
They conclude that it is permitted for individuals to use uncertified FOSS in software radios (consistent with the FCCs position on experimental or specialized equipment. Such equipment is exempt from the certification requirements if it is not marketed to the public and is only used under controlled conditions, citing 47 C.F.R. Part 2.803). In §3.3, they go so far as to argue that it is permitted for equipment manufacturers to ship uncertified software intended for individuals to use in this way, so long as they do not ship that software as part of a device; though this stronger proposition (that radio equipment manufacturers can develop and distribute such non-certified software) is conspicuously absent from the Conclusion section.
I suppose this means its fine for Ubuntu etc. to ship such software, but if Dell etc. wants to ship Ubuntu preloaded then they need to modify it to use certified software (which will probably involve proprietary software due to the higher burden to prove FOSS as sufficiently secure), probably instead of, rather than in addition to, the uncertified software.
Obviously youd be foolish to rely on my casual summary; I provide it only for the sake of the curiosity of casual readers like myself.
Comments of confirmation or denial by people who've read more carefully than I are welcome.
tentative summary of argument Posted Dec 4, 2008 12:08 UTC (Thu) by farnz (guest, #17727) [Link] One quibble - although certifying FOSS generally (e.g. all versions of Linux on the market) is harder than certifying proprietary software, certifying a clearly identified release (e.g. Ubuntu 8.04.1) is not. Thus, Canonical could certify their Atheros drivers in Ubuntu to suit the commercial needs of Dell, and could update that certification whenever the drivers change. This would avoid Dell needing to use proprietary software to prove that things are sufficiently secure.
|
|
||||||||||||