Subject: Re: slashdot on 'OpenBSD Activism Shows Drivers Can Be Freed'
To: David Young <dyoung@pobox.com>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Timo_Sch=F6ler?= <eclipser23@web.de>
List: tech-net
Date: 11/02/2004 15:36:41
>>> maybe this is an interesting article/overview?
>>>
>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/11/01/2321205.shtml?
>>> tid=122&tid=137&tid=17
>>
>> This evening I will write a response here to some of the issues raised
>> in the low-S/N Slashdot discussion.
>
> If I can get Slashdot to send me my password, I will post this to
> answer the "open-source HALs/firmwares are illegal" nonsense:
>
> It is not true that WiFi card makers are not allowed, under
> U.S. regulations, to expose the transmit power control, tuning,
> etc., to the user. People who say so, even people at Atheros who
> say so, are mistaken or lying. (As one FCC lawyer told me in the
> mealy-mouthed language of Washington, D.C., "it sounds to me like
> they are being less than forthright.")
>
> And yes, I am quite aware of the FCC's SDR rules. Why, I have
> even read them, which is more than virtually anybody else who is
> commenting has done! A maker certifies their product under the SDR
> rules *at their own option*, and then (and only then) do they
> accept
> certain strictures (they have to take measures to protect against
> tampering) in exchange for a streamlined re-certification process.
> AFAICT from the FCC certifications database, NO WIFI RADIO, least
> of
> all any Atheros-based radio, has been certified under the SDR
> rules.
> The rules simply *do not apply* in WiFi space.
>
> (Now, it is likely that the rules in Europe are stricter than in
> the
> United States. Still, Atheros will send you a copy of the U.S. SDR
> rules if you ask about the regulatory issue.)
>
> Incidentally, every single WiFi radio in existence is
> software-defined
> under the FCC's broad definition. Some of them nevertheless
> have open-source drivers that let you adjust the tuning and power
> control by getting directly at the hardware. See, for instance,
> the open-source ADMtek drivers for BSD and for Linux. I wrote
> the former driver, and I didn't have to break U.S. law to do it.
> And the manufacturer supports new development on the driver.
>
> Finally, I will just add that the FCC has traditionally not
> required even a modicum of tamper-proofing on Part 15 devices.
> Their long-standing position has been that a device need only
> protect
> consumers from *inadvertently* or *casually* tuning a channel
> they're
> not entitled to use, or setting an illegal power level, in order to
> qualify for certification. Furthermore, the FCC seems to be aware
> that determined radio hackers with malicious mis-use in mind will
> not be stopped. Hacking a wireless driver for illegal channels
> or transmit powers is not the "casual" or "inadvertent" consumer
> activity that the device certification process is designed to
> prevent.
>
> I think the real reason Atheros and other WiFi chipmakers are not
> opening things up is that they want to protect their intellectual
> property. Someone at Atheros has told me that is a key reason.
> I doubt that there are major innovations in the software interface
> (register set, descriptor ring format, blah blah) that give them a
> competitive advantage.
>
> You might ask, why does it matter whether the software interface
> concealed by the HAL is opened up? First, so that radio
> experimenters
> and open source developers can innovate with WiFi at their own
> pace and according to their own agenda. Second, because the HAL
> documentation is virtually non-existent, and nobody is going to
> write it. Third, (Theo will appreciate this) so we can audit the
> code
> (which runs w/ all the privileges on your Linux/BSD system!) for
> bugs.
> Fourth, so that we can fix the bugs---and there *are* bugs.
>
> Dave
>
> --
> David Young OJC Technologies
> dyoung@ojctech.com Urbana, IL * (217) 278-3933
thanks dave,
this should enlighten some of the guys there ;)
--
:x!
timo