On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 07:53:58AM -0600, David Young wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 10:01:12AM +0100, Timo Sch?ler wrote:
> > 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