Re: Supposed "reverse engineered"?
Otto Moerbeek
> Hi
>
> I just wanted to hear whether you have any comments to
> a mail sent to the m0n0wall development mailing list
> that states the following:
>
> (See http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/showmsg.php?id=12/83
> for the full message.)
>
> [SNIP]
>
> OpenBSD's team is far too willing to violate RFCs in
> their persuit to
> "rule the world" in my (not so) humble opinion. Have
> you looked at the
> 'ntp' implementation they ship?
This is all just spreading FUD. Just to make sure people really
know the story behind OpenNTPD:
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#OpenNTPD
-Otto
Marco Peereboom
Someone needs to read up on copyright law. The same someone might want to
spend some time in the law books as well learning how reverse engineering
works.
This is complete hogwash described by someone who is quite ignorant regarding
law.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 06:48:19AM -0700, Robert N White wrote:
> Hi
>
> I just wanted to hear whether you have any comments to
> a mail sent to the m0n0wall development mailing list
> that states the following:
>
> (See http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/showmsg.php?id=12/83
> for the full message.)
>
> [SNIP]
>
> OpenBSD's team is far too willing to violate RFCs in
> their persuit to
> "rule the world" in my (not so) humble opinion. Have
> you looked at the
> 'ntp' implementation they ship?
>
> Have you *looked* at the mess they made of 802.11
> support in OpenBSD?
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >2) Atheros support. While the concept of a
> vendor-supplied HAL makes
> >sense, Atheros really screwed it up by providing it
> in binary-only form
> >(for a pretty lame reason AIUI). If they had done it
> right - i.e.
> >providing the HAL as CPU- and OS-independent C
> source, then there would
> >have been no issue.
> >
> I'm certain (as in, I've asked and gotten answers)
> that they would have
> prefered this path as well. It wasn't an option, due
> to the very simple
> fact that it is *trivial* to tune the Atheros chipset
> *way* out of the
> ISM (and U-NII) bands. This, in effect means that an
> "open HAL" would
> (not could, *would*) result in substantial
> interference issues with
> users of licensed spectrum. While I could detail the
> various license
> holders who could scream (and sue) over this, I will
> point out one very
> vocal set of "licensed" users who would pull every
> trick in the book the
> second an "open HAL" resulted in detectible
> interference: HAM Radio
> Operators (especially the ARRL). You see, the (nearly
> world-wide) 13cm
> band runs from 2304MHz to 2450Mhz.
>
> > As it is, some people grudgingly accepted the
> >"official" HAL, while someone else developed an
> open-source replacement HAL
> >by reverse engineering Atheros's, and that was
> introduced in the latest
> >version of OpenBSD.
> >
> And it... doesn't work. Its total crap. Have you
> tried it? Moreover
> its clear (for those of us who can look at both the
> openbsd and "closed"
> HAL source code that there is clear copyright
> infringement in the
> (supposed) "reverse engineered" HAL in OpenBSD.
>
> Want to get (your customer's) sued? Run the "reverse
> engineered" HAL.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> Its not going to happen. First it would have to
> work, then the authors
> of the "open source HAL" would end up in court, having
> to defend
> themselves from a copyright infringement suit. Then
> they would end up
> in court having to defend themselves from the wrath of
> "spectrum
> licensees" and the regulatory agencies that granted
> (or sold) those
> licensees.
>
> >Note that if there really were a significant
> advantage in using the binary
> >HAL in OpenBSD, it could be used with a "wrapper" in
> the same manner as it
> >is in FreeBSD.
> >
> Too bad OpenBSD screwed with net80211, or one could
> merely "replace" one
> with the other.
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
> This is not to start a flame but to fine out whether
> or not the above is true or not.
>
> Regards
> Robert
Reyk Floeter
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 06:48:19AM -0700, Robert N White wrote:
> I just wanted to hear whether you have any comments to
> a mail sent to the m0n0wall development mailing list
> that states the following:
>
> (See http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/showmsg.php?id=12/83
> for the full message.)
>
i don't have to comment this crap. sorry. just read the list archives
from misc@.
reyk
Robert N White
I just wanted to hear whether you have any comments to
a mail sent to the m0n0wall development mailing list
that states the following:
(See http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/showmsg.php?id=12/83
for the full message.)
[SNIP]