Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

From: Kenneth Lavrsen (kenneth_at_lavrsen.dk)
Date: 08/28/04

  • Next message: Kasper Sandberg: "Re: PWC issue" 
    Date:	Sat, 28 Aug 2004 17:24:52 +0200
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>

    >
    > > It was accepted for 4 years.
    > > And then suddenly is was crippled without a replacement - because of a
    > > personal disagreement.
    >
    >Which "personal disagreement"?

    Anyone with just a little human sensitivity can see from the postings that
    are available between Greg and Nemosoft that there is a bad karma between
    them and that they could not communicate. And I read Gregs act as very
    arrogant.

    >There was a hook for a binary-only module in the kernel, and as soon as
    >Greg was made aware of it he removed it.

    Yes. As soon as he found out he removed it. WHY as soon as he was made
    aware of it? After 4 years in the kernel. WHY did he have to remove the
    hook right away before a replacement code was written? WHY was this so
    important? WHY couldn't it wait - maybe a month or two until Nemosoft had
    an alternative way to do it ready? Why was there no open dialog about how
    to get things straight again?
    This is the issue. Not weather binary modules should be allowed or not. I
    agree with keeping the kernel GPL. It is the way you did it and again. DO
    YOU CARE ABOUT THE USERS?

    > > - Do you care about the 10000s of users that you harm?
    > > - Do you care at all about anything else than yourself and your principles?
    >
    >The policy in the kernel is quite liberal concerning non-free code
    >(compare with e.g. the FSF and Debian).
    >
    >I'd prefer it if non-GPL modules were completely forbidden, but although
    >Linus stated himself that binary-only modules are a pain in the ass,
    >they are tolerated in the Linux kernel.

    Again you avoid the question by hising behind the GPL like a chicken.
    Do you care about the 10000s of users?

    > > - Could this have been handled in a better way that would lead to the
    > > pwc/pwcx being handled according to the new policy and so that the users
    > > would not be affected?
    >
    >Which "new policy"?
    >The fact that hooks for non-free modules are not allowed isn't new.

    The hook was there for 4 years. Don't come and say that no kernel
    developers knew that there was a binary module called pwcx.
    You can find open discussions about it way back. Maybe Greg personally did
    not know but some of the rest of you knew about pwcx. Some of you even have
    a Logitech 3000 or 4000 camera. Don't play the "We did not know" game here.

    And the fact that it has been there for many years simply cannot be argued.
    It has de facto been tolerated for years and 10000s of users depends on it.
    It should have been replaced later. Not crippled now. That is the point!!!!

    >Thankfully, the Linux kernel development is leaded by people for whom
    >technical things are more important than marketing issues.

    Total Customer Satisfaction is not marketing. It is a matter of treating
    other people in a decent way. It is a matter of being a good citizen.

    >There are many examples like e.g. EVMS or the current reiser4
    >discussion where "we really need it because of $important_reason" code
    >isn't accepted as it is for this or that technical reason.
    >I might not always agree with a specific decision, but generally it
    >leads in the long term to a better kernel.

    The kernel does not get better because the pwc driver is crippled here and
    now leaving the users with a problem - instead of being replaced by
    something better in a controlled way.
    The kernel does not get better by treating a kernel module contributor in
    an arrogant way by modifying the his code with no real dialog.
    The kernel gets better by correcting things in a way that makes it appear
    stable over time and encourage more people to participate. Not by chasing
    them away.

    That is the point.
    Or in other words.

    - Do the changes so that the users are not negatively impacted more than
    necessary. Care about the users!

    - Threat the contributors of any OSS with more respect and do not be
    arrogant. You should not be proud of people calling you bad names.

    It is OK that you don't want binary non GPL hooks in the kernel. That is
    not the argument. So please stop attacking something I never said.

    Kenneth 

    -- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk  
-
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/
  • Next message: Kasper Sandberg: "Re: PWC issue"

    Relevant Pages