On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 10:13:47AM +0100, Holger Schurig wrote: > 4. write the driver for Windows in the usual, close source > form, "leak" or give docs to some Linux developers and > let they write the driver for the device. FCC can't object, > you didn't wrote the driver :-) "FCC can't object"...this is only true to a point. Sure, AFAIK the FCC can do nothing to discipline the software developer in question. However, the FCC retains broad discretionary authority over the hardware manufacturer. So if a driver appeared that enabled "bad things" to happen with certain hardware, regulators might revoke that device's certification. This would be very expensive for a manufacturer and is the root of all wireless vendor non-cooperation. FWIW, my opinion is that this should be resolvable from a business perspective. The existence of an open source driver should represent a quantifiable financial risk -- a risk that is already present in some form anyway due to the existence of people with reverse engineering skills. Any decent business is good at managing risk, and any number of (re-)insurance firms exist to handle the finances involved with that. It seems to me that a business should be able to insure against potential losses at a rate that is more than offset by the gains of being strong in the burgeoning Linux market. Of course, if I were a brilliant business man...well, YMMV... :-) John -- John W. Linville linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
