Let me answer to the set of questions raised:
- dual licensing: I am not ready to answer for legal. I will discuss with
proper people and answer.
- code style: regardless of answer on question above, I intend to do Linux
work and will not care about compatibility macros. I really dislike such
macros, they do make code hard to understand.
- information sharing (driver-stack): good question indeed. I am currently
evaluating it. This far, I think I will supply some standard link layer
information per packet. Like rate, RSSI etc. For Tx, it will include also
crypto key for hardware assisted encryption, type of protection (RTS/CTS
etc.) I believe it should be sufficient. To prove it, I am going to write
some dummy .11 driver that will be capable to simulate any Rx, with user
interface for feeding packets. I will use this driver to debug stack.
It is complex issue to support all combination of job separation between host
and NIC, I will choose some model like "NIC do almost nothing" and will
develop around it.
On Wednesday 15 September 2004 06:17, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
LR> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:05:45PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
LR> > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:02:11PM -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
LR> > > I proposed dual licensing not to specifically allow clear
compatibility LR> > > among linux and the BSDs on the 802.11 work, but to
allow BSDers to do LR> > > whatever they want with what we come up with --
help with code sharing. LR> >
LR> > Overall, He Who Writes The Code Gets To Choose.
LR> > My own personal opinion is that the BSD license goes against the stated
LR> > spirit of Linux -- contribute back. But that's just me.
LR> Agreed -- but in this case I feel we're the bigger crowd so I wanted to
LR> address to the *author* that I feel we should be considerate to the BSD
Description: PGP signature