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

[Craig Southeren <craigs postincrement com>]

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 14:06:27 +0930
Malcolm Caldwell <malcolm caldwell ntu edu au> wrote:

..deleted

> > > 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!

Actually, there was no problem with the non-GPL code at all. The problem
was the the kernel maintainers decided to remove a hook function from
the standard kernel that was needed for the PWC driver, and then refused
to put it back in. This meant that the partially binary driver simply
could not work with a standard kernel any more.

Now, the PWC maintainer could have kept on maintaining the driver if
people were prepared to recompile their kernel to put the hook back in.
But he decided that if the kernel maintainers could unilaterally decide
to NOT support his code, then he could just as easily decide to stop
supporting it too.

For more information, see:

http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/

> 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.

The maintainers of high profile projects like the Linux kernel have the
power to decide who goes into standard kernel and who does not. When
they decide "not", there is little chance that the author can offer a
serious alternative to the full project. The result is that the code
becomes a mono-culture in the same way as Windows. This is something
that project maintainers fight against with varying degrees of success.
 
> 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!

Again, this is an oversimplification. The kernel maintainers could decide
that they do not like Philips cameras and refuse to include the code.
They are perfectly within their rights to do this, and if you think that
would never happen, I can remember when the PCMCIA code was not part of
the kernel because Linus didn't think it should be part of the kernel
tree.
 
> (*) 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?

I'll answer that question, if you can tell me why the kernel maintainers
decided to remove a hook function that had been part of the kernel for
three years.

Remember, in the case of PWC there was a maintainer who was prepared to
keep supporting the driver at no cost, but his code was excluded from
the kernel not because it did not work, and not because no-one used it,
but because the kernel maintainers had a strong Open Source agenda that
they could enforce without any fear of repercussions.

Doesn't this sound like behaviour normally ascribed to Microsoft?

..deleted

> > > > 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.

OSS is not "right" any more than closed source is "right". They both
have advantages (and distinct disadvantages). Why can't both co-exist?
 
> > > > 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.

I think it is pretty obvious that a consumer will embrace something that
has a zero dollar price tag. But TANSTAAFL ("There Ain't No Such Thing
As A Free Lunch") - just because is it zero cost does not mean there is
not a price to be paid. With Open Source, the price is paid in different
ways.
 
> > > 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.

And why shouldn't a driver stub be included in the kernel? What is wrong
with this?

> 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.

And that is one of the prices you pay for Open Source - your
capabilities are set by other people's agendas, and because you have no
way of swaying their decisions you must accept whatever they choose
regardless of whether you like it or not.

I still don't see why this is OK just because you have the notional
freedom to write and/or distribute your own kernel (how many people
could do that?

..deleted

> 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!)

Unless of course, the kernel developers decides that Philips drivers
should not be in the kernel even if they are GPL. If you think that is
impossible, I can rememember when Stallman said that he was not
interested in a version of gcc that supported the Macintosh environment
because Apple did not use Open Source. At some point that changed,
because gcc now runs on MacOSX, but there even used to be a web page
that said something like "Don't bother sending contributions for gcc on
the Mac because we are not interested in them"

   Craig

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Craig Southeren      craigs postincrement com / craigs voxgratia org

 Phone:  +61 243654666      ICQ: #86852844
 Fax:    +61 243673140      MSN: craig_southeren hotmail com
 Mobile: +61 417231046   Jabber: craigs jabber voxgratia org

 Post Increment - Consulting & Services    http://www.postincrement.com
 Vox Gratia - The Open Source VoIP portal  http://www.voxgratia.org
 Raving Of A Strange Mind - the VoIP blog  http://www.southeren.com/blog