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

[Malcolm Caldwell <malcolm caldwell ntu edu au>]

On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 15:58 -0400, 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).

I think the point is that linux DOES have drivers for most purposes,
even if it does not have drivers for every piece of hardware (but then
again, what does???(*))

The problem here was people went and bought these webcams because they
were supported in linux, but then the pin was pulled.  The problem here
is not linux.  The problem was with NON GPL CODE!

As long as you use non gpl code you can have the rug pulled out from
under you: it happened in this case: the author had the ability to stop
support and remove the code.

In fact, events show in favour of the linux 'zealots': now a pwc drivers
is being written, and no one will ever be able to remove it from the
public again!

(*) If I am not wrong it is easier to get linux to work with old
hardware than a modern Microsoft operating system.  If the hardware
company is not interested in creating new drivers who is going to do it?
Why should the hardware manufacturer create an incentive NOT to upgrade
to a new device?


> > 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.

Is freedom of any kind a religion?  If I say we should be careful to
ensure that we protect free speech or a free press is that being overly
dogmatic?  OSS is not religion - it is just common sense.

> > > The GPL is extremist, because it allows no middle way or respects no
> > > other license.

Maybe other licences do have enough protections but that does not mean
that the GPL is a bad licence.  It does have very strong protections
which any consumer should embrace.

> > 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.

I am no expert in the linux kernel and its approach to binary drivers
but as far as I know companies are still free to create binary drivers,
even create binary drivers with a GPL stub.  They just cant expect that
such code should be included in a standard kernel.org kernel.  Many
companies produce binary only drivers for linux and distribute them
outside the main kernel.

There is a group of people who are responsible for the linux kernel code
(and we can see they even have legal obligations here).  They must be
able to say what can and cannot be included.

> > 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.

Months?  Not even 1 month has passed in this episode!

>    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

In the final analysis, I say that this episode shows the linux
developers to have been correct:  Now we will have a GPL pwc driver,
that will be supported as long as there is interest by people who want
to support it.

(Think of this: in the future pwc will just work, out of the box, with
any kernel!)

> _______________________________________________
> GnomeMeeting-list mailing list
> GnomeMeeting-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnomemeeting-list