This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/baseband-devel@lists.osmocom.org/.
Mohammad Hosein mhtajik at gmail.comcan anybody point out an "open" project offering RF schemes and models plus baseband and mac implementation of Wifi ? any HDL or embedded stack is acceptable . i think the answer to this says a lot about other projects claiming open approach toward any widespread commercial radio system On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:59:08AM +0100, Jay R. Worthington wrote: > > > what do you expect to happen from a legal standpoint? My guess would be > > that the providers will fight an opensource firmware with every > > firebreathing lawyer in der reach, and if they won't do that, RegTP (or > > whatever they are call themself this week ;)) for sure will, a firmware > > that would reject some evil RRLP queries can't be tolerated :-S > > Hi Jay, > > in fact, my legal analysis had been quite optimistic, at least for > Europe. the RT&TTE directive largely regulates the sale and > distribution of "devices" that transmit on radio frequencies. Devices > need to have CE markings and a declaration of conformity. As GSM > terminals are part of harmonized standards, the vendor can either > certify himself that the devices are CE compliant, or he can use a > 'notified body' (a certification lab) to do that externally. The > Procedure is described in Annex III of the directive. > > The testing that needs to be done is in EN 301 511, and EN 301 489-7 > > However, this all only applies if you distribute the devices with > modified firmware. The device with original firmware of course is > compliant to the directive and has a Motorola declaration of conformity. > > Distributing the OsmocomBB firmware itself is certainly not a "device" > under the current legislation. > > Installing + Using it as a user [on a public network] might pose a legal > risk, but to be honest I wouldn't know what kind of regulation that > would be. There might be a breach of contract of your operator terms > of services. And of course, if the firmware misbehaves and causes RF > interference, that would be transmission without a radio license, or in > the worst case interference with public communications networks. > > But then, at the same time, lots of people already use Free Software > based firmware in their WiFi chips, and I think we've had a lot of > discussion in that area. Nonetheless, many people do it... > > An no, there is no real difference here due to the fact that 2.4 GHz ist > unregulated spectrum. You also have to make sure that the frequency, > transmission power, harmonics, etc. fall within the rules set forth in > the harmonized standards. > > Regards, > Harald > -- > - Harald Welte <laforge at gnumonks.org> > http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ > > ============================================================================ > "Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option." > (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/baseband-devel/attachments/20111213/472eed11/attachment.htm>