On Oct 30, 2005, at 8:06 AM, Robert N White wrote:

> Hi
>
> --- 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
>> instance.
>>
>>
>>> 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
> code?

I can't speak for Atheros.

>
> Much better would it be if Atheros released their
> driver under a open source license.

Already covered, thanks.

Jim