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

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

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004, Malcolm Caldwell wrote:

> > He pulled the GPL code too. Doesn't make a difference if the code is
> > binary or not. It was gone.
>
> It was not 'gone'.  It still existed.  It was not in the *latest*
> version of the kernel, but it was still in all the many many kernel
> trees before everywhere (including kernel.org) created before it was
> 'removed'.  How many copies of that code continued to exist on our
> planet?
>
> Additionally, it was always said that the driver would be re-included if
> someone submitted a patch and indicated they would support it.

No, it was not always said, I was part of that discussion and for instance 
Linus himself said initially that he would like the original maintainers 
wish for removal to be granted.

It was as gone as the binary part. If it weren't for the previous stable 
kernel version, one would have had to look for it in web or cvs-caches, 
just like for the binary part.

And both were quite hard to find on the web, strangely enough.

The question is this: should people be allowed to remove some GPL code 
they contributed themselves, or did they loose all ownership? I think 
there is no clear cut answer to this, either legally or morally.

If Linus wanted it out of the kernel source, what was than the difference 
with the binary driver? I don't think one was more gone than the other, in 
this case.

> It was not removed from the public.  It was just not included in a few
> revisions of the kernel, which AFAIK were not even marked as release
> versions.

It was removed exactly like the binary part was removed, by the same 
person, for the same reason. And initially, it was intended to be 
completely removed, either part. If the maintainer pulled the code and 
sticked to his guns, one would have had to re-implement a driver which was 
already opensource (think about that :) ).

> I am not expert on this but: The GPL does not restrict other licences
> from existing, or even stop you using software with other licences.  It
> does stop certain kinds of linking with GPL software.

That's like saying christians and muslims shouldn't mix. It's not freedom; 
restriction is not freedom. Sure, one can invent the rules of their own 
religion, but I think the GPL (and more specifically, how some uphold it 
more in letter than in spirit) is on thin ice regarding respect for other 
licenses, code and extremism. Ofcourse, I see the point of it, but I will 
not always categorically approve it.

I really believe that the default kernel should not depend on any closed 
source drivers, or require a closed source part. But I believe also that 
it should allow a way for people to load exterior software, whatever it 
takes to make things work. It does not take away from the GPL.

(Same goes for those everlasting debian discussions about movie players 
and their codecs... People should have the choice to load any binary 
codecs or even 'illegally obtained' decryption libraries for dvd's.)