[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1154308614.13635.49.camel@localhost>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 03:16:54 +0200
From: Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>
To: Alistair John Strachan <s0348365@....ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Jan Dittmer <jdi@....org>, Jirka Lenost Benc <jbenc@...e.cz>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ipw2100-admin@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: ipw3945 status
On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 01:23 +0100, Alistair John Strachan wrote:
> On Monday 31 July 2006 00:12, Pavel Machek wrote:
> [snip]
> > And... Intel will not even tell you WTF that daemon does. They claim
> > it is for FCC, but it seems to be doing more than that. So maybe I'm
> > not _that_ paranoid.
>
> Agreed, from what Matthew's said it seems like the daemon is being used to
> hide intellectual property, not something we should really be encouraging.
>
> I think the title "regulatory daemon" has multiple meanings, it REGULATES your
> frequencies to FCC specs, it REGULATES your wireless card's power and
> temperature levels, and it REGULATES your right to use the hardware ;-)
>
> Ultimately the question remains, will we open this can of worms by accepting
> drivers that depend on proprietary software (i.e. they will not function at
> all without it). I'm fairly sure the answer should be "No".
I entirely agree that this should not be merged, those will accept these
kindof things, can use intels out of tree driver.
i sincerely hope for a forked/rewritten driver which does not depend on
closed userspace daemons.
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists