Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] PWC driver story continues.

[George Bell <gbell5 cox net>]

On Thursday 16 September 2004 02:00, Johnny Strom wrote:
> Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2004, Johnny Strom wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >>
> >> Well this i becouse how FreeBSD is licensed, I prefer gpl/lgpl kind of
> >> license becouse then one knows that the software will be around in the
> >> future.
>
> Well the reson for GPL was and still is that improvments to a program
> have to be open source (RMS will call it free software) as well, and
I think there are execptions(see below).

> never be closed again. If the world was an utopia then the BSD would
> work just fine. I think in some cases so are BSD ok it depends a bit
> on what one want's to accomplish with the software.
>
> Anyway it seems that pwcx is almost completely reverse engineerd now:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.1/2448.html
>
> Have someone tested this already?
>
> > Or, in the case of many drivers, no software at all.
> >
> > The way I see it, the GPL is an utopia. It's definitely worth fighting
> > for, but in the mean while, I would like to use my webcam. Life goes on,
> > I'm not going to hold my breath for all companies to open up all of
> > their drivers and specifics before I fulfill the main goal of using my
> > webcam to talk to people.
> >
> > Sometimes, the goal is to improve the world, and do things the hard way,
> > sticking to what you believe in. Using my webcam is not one of those
> > things; you can't fight all battles. It's software; not a religion. I
> > don't like religion.
> >
> > The GPL is extremist, because it allows no middle way or respects no
> > other license.
>
> Well I think it is good that GPL is clear about what is allowed or not
> we need that in the future.
>
>   And while that is good for some things, I believe it's
>
> > also very unproductive and unflexible for others, such as allowing
> > companies to slowly open up more of their drivers. Nobody wants to hear
> > "the code or fuck off". That attitude makes the GPL even more just an
> > utopia.
>
> Well I think it is like this companies will be more willing to open up
> drivers when there is more demand for Linux and in some areas so are
> comapines alreay doing that especially regarding server related hardware.
>

But there propably won't be more demand as the intolerant Linux policy will 
keep Linux from becoming more popular.   It will forever be relegated to a 
minority group of technically oriented users.    It seems to me that a 
product's drivers are closely bound to the hardware and reflects a 
significant portion of that company's investment in research and development.  
How can it be expected that companies always must release their source code?   
As a consumer I would prefer to be able to install a proprietary driver in 
Linux as easily as it is done in Windows.    I should not be resigned to wait 
some months later for some hacker to reverse engineer my drivers in order to 
preserve the terms of the GPL.   The GPL is fine and noble and has made the 
world a better place, but I don't think it was intended to actually suppress 
commercial development.   Or does it?

My 2c worth,
George