Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Clearance For New Linux Wireless Driver

Posted by kdawson on from the room-turned-out-to-be-clean dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Software Freedom Law Center has given legal clearance to OpenHAL, a wireless component for Linux, based on their pro-bono review of the code. This announcement dispels allegations of infringement on Atheros' proprietary HAL software. 'We believe that this outcome will clear the way for eventual acceptance of a new wireless driver into the Linux kernel,' said John Linville, the Linux kernel maintainer for wireless networking."

4 of 113 comments (clear)

  1. Re:some history by itachi0x0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    According to TFA, they did a code audit on both the open and closed source drivers. That's a bit more rigorous than an opinion on a patent, IMO.

  2. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, it sucks arse.
    I have three different Broadcom chipsets supposedly handled by the drivers. One of them works well. The other two barely at all, with lots of dropouts and other problems. This on several different distros too. I invariably end up using ndiswrapper for stability and reliability.

  3. Re:some history by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Informative

    Kodak saved $1.8 BILLION dollars by hiring lawyers to conduct thorough reviews of the technology and patents.

    If you willfully infringe someone's patent, you can get up to three times the damages you incurred. This is to dissuade people from knowingly and intentionally infringing on someone's patent and simply paying actual damages. (This would be a kind of forced royalty.) Having attorneys analyze your product, search for relevant patents, and study both then swear up and down you do not infringe argues against willful infringement.

    Kodak's attorneys were wrong when they said the products didn't infringe, but they conducted a thorough review in good faith. The court found that Polaroid was not entitled to treble damages on these facts because there was no showing of willful infringement.

    Up until 2004, failure to obtain opinion of counsel was a sign that you willfully infringed a patent you knew about. Now the lack of an opinion of counsel is just a sign you willfully infringed.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=htt p%3A%2F%2Fwww.mmmlaw.com%2Farticles%2Farticle_234. pdf&ei=36WvRun2MYKceaCbyYQG&usg=AFQjCNElqULOs3YimA zIWiRf3e-WS0LrKw&sig2=QptmOxEHX6EUKFrrG3RvYQ

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  4. Re:Is there are good Linux WL HCL? by AeroIllini · · Score: 3, Informative

    Try here.

    http://linux-wless.passys.nl/

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.