| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Linux loses the Philips webcam driverLinux loses the Philips webcam driverPosted Aug 27, 2004 16:40 UTC (Fri) by gregkh (subscriber, #8)Parent article: Linux loses the Philips webcam driver
Please see http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/230136 for my
greg k-h
(Log in to post comments)
Linux loses the Philips webcam driver Posted Aug 27, 2004 19:04 UTC (Fri) by kh (subscriber, #19413) [Link] Thank you for your efforts to keep the kernel Free.
Linux loses the Philips webcam driver Posted Aug 30, 2004 3:54 UTC (Mon) by penfold (guest, #21150) [Link] I am not a developer, nor have I studied the driver's code, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question.
But from the posts I read (both here and referenced in the links above), I think I see both sides of the argument. However, it appears to me that this hook was removed mainly because it's sole purpose was to support a closed source driver.
My stupid question: Could not something be written (open source of course) that would strip out the compressed video and simply generate a test pattern (Color bars perhaps?) with some text that mentions the feature(s) requires a closed source binary?
As I understand it, it would satisfy the closed source binary policy of the kernel (now an open source element requires the same hook), the NDA constraints that the developer may be operating under, while still providing support for a popular product.
Since I am not involved in this project, I do not know who is the best person to contact with this idea. If this is a good idea, I hope someone forwards it to those that do something with it. If it is not a good idea, I hope it helps spark a good one in someone else.
Linux loses the Philips webcam driver Posted Aug 30, 2004 7:09 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Huh. Typical "American answer". Rules are not laws! Linus is god as far is Linux is concerned. And he can just say: "yes, doing this is against the rules but it's good for linux kernel so we should do it this way". And it'll be end of story. No need to write some useless GPLed crap. Why here it did not go this way ? Simple: rules are invented to keep linux kernel in good shape and not something good in itself. Keeping this hook did not served purpose of supporting usefull free software so what's the point. There were similar discussions about hooks SELinux uses - they were to poorly developed that Linus said he'll consider total removal of hooks despite having quite usefull free software needing these hooks. So no, your proposal is not any good. And as far as you'll tring about a way to legalize binary module you'll get no support from kernel folks. You have two choices really: If you'll try to make letter of said rules satisfied but not spirit... well - it'll go nowhere. Rules by itself is not something work satisfying.
|
|
||||||||||||