>>> 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