Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

• Previous message: David Howells: "[PATCH] CacheFS - general filesystem cache"
• In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches"
• Next in thread: Wouter Van Hemel: "Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date:	Fri, 27 Aug 2004 02:21:51 +0200 (CEST)
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> Having a hook in the kernel (in GPLed code) for the explicit purpose of
> allowing a binary module is not allowed. Go read Linus's statements
> about this in the archives.
>

I understand that loading binary pieces in a stand-alone driver is an
undesirable situation, but I think you take things too strict. Sometimes
you must look at the meaning behind a rule, and not just take things as
universal law. It is certainly not 'illegal', as Philips has clearly given
permission and helped out on getting this driver included.

Indeed, as far as I understand, there is hope that this binary part will
once be open sourced. However, rejecting Philips' contribution completely
will not aid in getting their products supported, and we desperately need
support for some of these devices. As I already told you, I tried 3 other
webcams which failed to work, and I've ordered this camera (and received
it today, for crying out loud) precisely because it works in Linux, just
like many other people have.

> Then talk to Phillips, or Nemosoft. I didn't rip the driver out of the
> kernel, only the hook. Nemosoft asked that the driver be riped out, and
> that's his option.
>

But look where he has come from... He has gotten support from Philips, he
has received lots of information (mostly under NDA apparently, sadly
enough), and with some patience, he might have gotten a full opensource
version. Ripping out code that Philips already supported, will not help in
getting them to open up more.

>> Binary code is not illegal. Undesirable, maybe. But not illegal. It's not
>> even included in the kernel code. Only a hook, and it's not even a forced
>> dependency.
>
> Great, then use the version I did without the hook. That's fine with
> me.
>

You don't seem to understand that your sense of righteousness is setting
back a lot of people, and if you would stand up and tell them you'd
contact Philips yourself, perhaps people would be more understanding, but
now you just pulled one of the only (and major, and supported, and
working) drivers without as much as an alternative or promise to attempt
to rectify the problem thusly created. Have you at least tried to contact
Philips to improve things constructively?

Yes, I do think that if you want to see the whole driver as opensource,
you should at least have tried once to get it in a way you can agree with,
and not just start removing things other people seem to have worked hard
for to achieve. With which I don't mean that I think it's a good idea of
Nemosoft to pull all code - he too should remember it's not only about
him, but also about all people using this driver, and about Philips, who
seem to have been quite supportive in the development process.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

• Previous message: David Howells: "[PATCH] CacheFS - general filesystem cache"
• In reply to: Greg KH: "Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches"
• Next in thread: Wouter Van Hemel: "Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]