On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 6:23 AM, GÃbor Stefanik <netrolller.3d@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Stanislaw Gruszka <sgruszka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:21:29PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote: >>> On 02/18/2011 03:24 PM, RafaÅ MiÅecki wrote: >>> >Few months later, is there any progress? Can we expect: >>> > >>> >1) Easier licensing of currently provided firmware (see Fedore case) >>> >2) Firmware for LP-PHY devices >>> >? >>> >>> I think we can forget this whole business. It seems that Broadcom is >>> content with their business model, even though knowledgeable Linux >>> users are avoiding their products like the plague. >> >> Broadcom will not release old firmware with redistributable license, >> because of legal concerns, which are ridiculous for everyone except >> them. >> >> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-September/142893.html >> >> That sucks. >> > > This looks like the same argument Intel is using to justify long > delays before releasing new firmware - it needs to pass regulatory > testing to ensure that regulatory restrictions in released FW cannot > be circumvented. Both seem rather odd in light of Atheros's > open-source firmware projects and general "conformant-by-default, but > no "DRM" to prevent regulatory infringement" policy - though I seem to > remember that Atheros acquired SDR certification, while Broadcom and > Intel both went for regular "part 11" certification only. AFAIK the > rules for SDRs are much more lax than those for part-11-only devices. Huh ? No, there have been no 802.11 SDR certificiations by Atheros or any modern vendor. We're all on the same boat. Luis -- 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
