<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Pierce, that's a really interesting way to phrase it, and accurate:<div><br><div><div>On Feb 28, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Pierce Nichols wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><br>What makes this work is that the legal compliance critical bits are<br>buried in the hardware implementation. Everything else is standards<br>compliance.<br></span></blockquote></div><br></div><div>It overlaps a bit with the argument about not open-sourcing the mechanicals, particularly of some toys, to keep them within CPSC compliance. So burying the "legal compliance bit" (nice phrase) in proprietary hardware makes sense from a liability standpoint. If I know I'm using a radio that someone else did the compliance due diligence on, then I can, at worst, pass on any liability claims to them, while wrapping their module in an open "hardware API", of sorts.</div><div><br></div><div>I wonder if this means things get more open or less as we see more system-on-chips come out...</div><div><br></div><div>t.</div><div><br></div></body></html>