On Oct 30, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Robert N White wrote:
> --- Jim Thompson <jim at netgate dot com> wrote:
>> If <someone> is me, then yes, I understand Copyright
>> law, and Yes, son,
>> I do understand "reverse engineering".
>> I also understand that it *DID NOT HAPPEN* in this
>>> This is complete hogwash described by someone who
>> is quite ignorant regarding law.
>> The responder has no idea what he's talking about,
>> and bases his remarks
>> on sources which "assure him" that the HAL is
>> "reverse engineered".
>> I (and others, including Atheros) have the advantage
>> that we can view
>> both sets of source code.
> If this is true why doesn't Atheros contact OpenBSD
> and make them remove the copyrighted code? If this
> doesn't work then take it to court. Or are Atheors
> just accepting that OpenBSD uses their copyrighted
I can't speak for Atheros.
> Much better would it be if Atheros released their
> driver under a open source license.
Already covered, thanks.