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

[Johnny Strom <jonny strom netikka fi>]

George Bell wrote:
> 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?

OSS already have passed commercial development in some areas look at the 
Numbers:

http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html


Cheers Johnny


> My 2c worth,
> George