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

[Wouter Van Hemel <wouter-gnomemeeting fort-knox rave org>]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, Johnny Strom wrote:

> 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 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.

There's a place for both.

> Anyway it seems that pwcx is almost completely reverse engineerd now:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0409.1/2448.html

That's great.

> Have someone tested this already?
>
> > 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.

But it should respect both software with other licenses, and it's users, 
who directly or indirectly pay the kernel developers.

It starts with idealism, openness, freedom. the love for software, helping 
out the third world bridging the digital divide, people vs. big 
corporations and their tricks; and then it turns into a dogma, rules for 
the sake of rules, and the original goal is ignored or mutilated. Just 
like religion. :)

Perhaps the GPL could be used in wiser ways than as a Jihad manifest.

> 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.

There is a limit; if Linux reaches that limit, having enough popularity 
and acceptance, it will probably work. But Linux doesn't come close to 
that make-or-break limit yet, especially for sound/video drivers. And 
having too much of an attitude before having the power, will stop it from 
ever growing big enough to make the rules.

And  I don't think anybody likes unreasonable zealots, no matter which 
side they're on. :)

> > And I don't need to tell you that we (as in the Linux users) *need* 
> > drivers; without pwc, for example, the support for 'available' webcams in 
> > Linux would be practically nill.
>
> Yes unfortunatly and that is becouse to what I wrote above.

Luckily, in the case of the pwc driver, it seems things are working out 
fine...