Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261857AbUDXC37 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:29:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261865AbUDXC37 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:29:59 -0400 Received: from ns.indranet.co.nz ([210.54.239.210]:27609 "EHLO mail.acheron.indranet.co.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261857AbUDXC3x (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:29:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:29:25 +1200 From: Andrew McGregor To: root@chaos.analogic.com cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski , Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [somewhat OT] binary modules agaaaain Message-ID: <59185674.1082816965@[192.168.1.249]> In-Reply-To: References: <5137757.1082762917@[192.168.1.249]> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.0.0 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2520 Lines: 71 --On Friday, 23 April 2004 8:29 a.m. -0400 "Richard B. Johnson" wrote: > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Andrew McGregor wrote: > >> And it must, if only because there are laws that require some device >> drivers to be binary only. > > > WRONG. I work in the industry. There are no such rule(s). In fact, > it's quite the opposite. Anything that is FCC Type Accepted or > Type Approved has, as a matter of law, its complete design > information, to the extent required for FCC Type Acceptance, > available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. > Therefore, it can't be hidden as something "proprietary". I was aware of that much, but does that actually include the code of the drivers? By the way, there are examples outside wireless as well, but they are very exotic. >> I kid you not, take a look at the FCC software radio rules. Some >> wireless cards fall into their definition. >> > > The requirement that the devices "not be modified" has been interpreted > by some to mean that software can't be supplied to the end-user. This > is an interpretation and, in fact, an invalid one. That is very good news. I'll have to get an opinion myself, of course, but I think it is good to get this clarified in public. > If a user were to modify the device, (presumably by changing the > software) it is no longer Type Approved in the case of receivers, > and, if a transmitter the modification must be done in accordance > with "good standards of engineering practice" under the authority > of a holder of a General Radiotelephone (or Radiotelegraph) License. > > The operation of a receiver that is not "Type Approved" is not > unlawful unless it produces "harmful interference". Type Approval > was necessary to SELL a device that generates radio frequency > energy, not to use it. > > FYI Amateur Radio Operators make receivers and transmitters. They > are not Type Approved. Holders of FCC Radiotelephone licenses are > allowed to make or modify even 50,000 watt broadcast transmitters. I was aware of the situation regarding license holders. > > Cheers, > Dick Johnson Thanks for pointing this out, Andrew --------- Andrew McGregor Director, Scientific Advisor IndraNet Technologies Ltd http://www.indranet-technologies.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/