Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] Philips camera support discontinued?

[Miguel Rodríguez Pérez <miguelrp gmail com>]

Amen.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:05:32 +0200, PUYDT Julien <jpuydt free fr> wrote:
> pwc is GPL, and is ok to be in the kernel.
> pwcx is proprietary, so can't go directly in the kernel.
> nvidia is proprietary, so can't go directly in the kernel.
> 
> nvidia uses a generic interface to be loaded in the kernel at runtime,
> ie: the interface happens to be there, and is widely used to get libre
> modules loaded too. Hence, it is an acceptable module with respect to
> the GPL.
> 
> pwcx on the other hand, gets into the kernel using an interface that is
> specifically tailored for it. That is not compatible with the GPL. That
> is the reason why the linux developpers want that interface out of the
> libre part of the module. The author considers it the last straw, and
> wants the full work pulled out.
> 
> In my oh so humble opinion, the kernel developpers made a good decision.
> That doesn't mean the driver's author is wrong: he really did a good
> work: he really had to wait too long to get in the kernel, and his
> driver really has also been deliberately broken on a number of
> occasions. I thank him for his work.
> 
> Still, if he decides to step down, the GPL part of his driver can still
> work (I only use that part, and I would only need someone to take that
> part back into the kernel). And if people really want pwcx back, here is
> a way to have it back:
> * make a nice interface to hook it in pwc;
> * write a *useful* (ie: it really must serve a purpose for some device)
> and libre decompressor sub-module;
> * now if philips gets you to write a new pwcx for that interface, you're
> in the same case as nvidia: a proprietary (sub-)module using a generic
> interface.
> 
> If I made a mistake on anything above, feel free to answer and correct
> me ; I've even been proven wrong on some occasions! ;-)
> 
> Snark on #gnomemeeting
> 
> PS: I prefer using the french "libre" than the english/american "free",
> because "free" has two meanings (free as in freedom and as zero cost),
> whereas "libre" has just one (the first!), and the one I want. (And it
> has a latine origin so shouldn't hurt other people's feelings too much.)
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> GnomeMeeting-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list
>