>From tech-net-owner-track=Plectere.com@NetBSD.org Wed Nov  3 09:16:04 2004
>Delivered-To: tech-net@netbsd.org
>To: tech-net@NetBSD.org
>Subject: Re: slashdot on 'OpenBSD Activism Shows Drivers Can Be Freed' 
>In-Reply-To: <200411031647.iA3GlVuf022784@Plectere.com> 
>X-Face: "Evs"_GpJ]],xS)b$T2#V&{KfP_i2`TlPrY$Iv9+TQ!6+`~+l)#7I)0xr1>4hfd{#0B4
>	WIn3jU;bql;{2Uq%zw5bF4?%F&&j8@KaT?#vBGk}u07<+6/`.F-3_GA@6Bq5gN9\+s;_d
>	gD\SW #]iN_U0 KUmOR.P<|um5yP<ea#^"SJK;C*}fMI;Mv(aiO2z~9n.w?@\>kEpSD@*e`
>Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:58:27 -0500
>From: Ken Hornstein <kenh@cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
>X-Spam-Score: () hits=0 User Authenticated
>X-Virus-Scanned: NAI Completed
>X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.30 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)
>Sender: tech-net-owner@NetBSD.org
>Precedence: list
>
>>	Sorry for taking a day, but I've been busy and didn't immediately
>>notice you comments.  While I agree with many of your points, you have made
>>at least a few errors in the last few couple of days;  As an example of the
>>FCC specifically requiring a manufacturer to "restrict" software and drivers
>>(NOTE: this IS an Atheros chip in question - in fact its an outstanding
>>NetBSD PR) look at the documents (on the FCC site):
>>
>>	https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=38
>>8828&native_or_pdf=pdf
>
>The key bits from this document are:
>
>	If the manufacturer chooses to proceed forth by eliminating the
>	channels in 5150-5250 MHz band for use in the United States, then we
>	will require an attestation from the manufacturer (on D-Link
>	letterhead) that states:
>
>	"This device will not allow the end user to select channels in the
>	5150-5250 MHz band. Software and/or drivers will not be provided to
>	allow operation in these bands."
>
>This is consistant with what Dave said earlier (notice that they specified
>"end user").  The FCC _didn't_ say "You can't tell anyone how to program
>this hardware to transmit in that band".
>
>--Ken
>

	A very fine point:  The manufacturer is barred from providing
"software or drivers" with a particular capability, but can allow a
third party to develop exactly that!?  I am not a lawyer, but I wouldn't
want to test that interpretation.  (Remember, these are the people who
check to make sure you can not any longer modify HAM transmitters or
radio scanners by simply cutting a circuit board trace or diode).  Look
up the exact requirements for licensing required to MODIFY transmitters
(and yes, there are special "hobbyist" exceptions for small numbers of
devices); They are fairly onerous,

	Paul Shupak
	paul@plectere.com

P.S.  Bugs in all existing Window's drivers for Atheros chips seem to allow
"illegal" active scanning on some channels and some cards (e.g. anything
Netgear and many others), and "illegal" associations to access-points or
routers on those same channels (12-14, & 100-140) but I don't think that
it is on purpose (except, possibly the D-Link channel 52 mess - They already
had WHQL so seemed to ignore the FCC and their own filings, about removing
it, and operation in turbo mode on channel 50 seem to contradict their own
documents - though it works with their supplied drivers).

P.P.S.  As to "tamper-proofing" PART 15 devices, my drawer full of "security"
bits and screwdrivers attests that many manufacturer do attempt to prevent
physical access to the insides of the devices they sell (often at the FCC's
request - I can dig up other references if you like, but a search on PART 15
transmitters will give you all you should need).