| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Let's not try to sweeten itLet's not try to sweeten itPosted Aug 27, 2004 17:58 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165)In reply to: Linux loses the Phillips webcam driver by marduk Parent article: Linux loses the Philips webcam driver This is a loss for Free Software. Period. We stuck to our guns, and now suffer for it. There's no point in pretending that it's always easy to stick with policy. Besides losing the driver, this is a PR failure: it will distract vendors from the many drivers integrated smoothly into the kernel source. However, we should not exaggerate the misfortune, or miss the real lesson. The real lesson of this whole fiasco is tread lightly. Given a bit of delicacy and time, everything could have been resolved. GK-H might have mailed the author privately (or phoned him!) and discussed alternatives informally, without backing him against the wall in public. With a few days to think about it, surely they would have hit on one of the many acceptable ways to put the proprietary stuff in user space. Next time.
(Log in to post comments)
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 27, 2004 18:49 UTC (Fri) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] Well, could you explain how loosing a binary-only driver is a loss for Free Software ?
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 27, 2004 19:03 UTC (Fri) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] You're not paying attention. We didn't just lose the binary driver, we lost the whole thing, and the maintainer besides. And all for nothing, really. This is something the FSF people understand better than the Linux kernel people do: confrontations usually produce heat, not light.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 27, 2004 19:23 UTC (Fri) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link] Yes, I understand that the "confrontation" was unfortunate and likely unnecessary. However I'm not so convinced that it was entirely the fault of the kernel maintainer. The driver author's own words seem to indicate that he (too?) was unwilling to bend. If he had/does submit the crippled, yet fully-open version of his driver, then I'm sure there would be little issue getting it merged into the kernel. Hopefully in the future he or some other knowledgeable person will do just that.
So in my original post (and this one as well) my aim was not to take either person's side but the side of free software itself. It's unfortunate that the free software got taken out of the kernel, yet just as unfortunate that one insists on only supporting driver with the binary-only parts included. I still conclude: both sides lose, but the net result is that free software wins (i.e. the kernel stays free).
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 31, 2004 7:58 UTC (Tue) by bignose (subscriber, #40) [Link] > We didn't just lose the binary driver, we lost the whole thing, and the> maintainer besides.
No, the GPL code is still available to all under the GPL. We lost only the current maintainer.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 28, 2004 0:06 UTC (Sat) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Its a loss to Free Software because its one more bit of functionality lost over a largely pointless idiological point.
I care about features. I care about there being a real alternative to Microsoft Windows on the desktop. Within certain boundaries nothing else matters to me. Its pretty much that simple. And losing a significant bit of functionality in this way works against my interests and the interests of a lot of people who feel that idiology should be properly balanced against reality.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 28, 2004 7:23 UTC (Sat) by xav (subscriber, #18536) [Link] Then, really, use something like MacOS X, it is exactely what you want.You didn't understand what Free Software is, it's not just an alternative to Windows. Respecting the GPL isn't a "largely pointless idiological point", it's what enables linux to progress and be independant of software vendors - it's more pragmatic than you think.
And then, bitching about your interests won't get you very far. The guys who will solve that current little problem will be the ones who decide to work on a new driver (or take over the old), not the ones whining on the forums.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 31, 2004 20:12 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] No, I understand perfectly well what free software is. The thing is as long as it is free to me I could care less where it comes from.
And no, I don't consider MacOS an alternative.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 29, 2004 17:09 UTC (Sun) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] It's lucky for you that somebody else is looking out for your interests, because you obviously don't understand them yourself. Free Software is about actually free software. Without that, it isn't about anything. Who would participate in something that isn't about anything? It would just fade away like so many other projects that are started and cannot sustain themselves.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 31, 2004 20:13 UTC (Tue) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] Gee, thanks for caring...
Personally I prefer to look out for my own interests. Something I'm 100% capable of doing by the way.
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 28, 2004 15:11 UTC (Sat) by _shadow (guest, #24330) [Link] How do we loose?
Easy to explain, Windows supports hardware much better than Linux today. We loose one camera support. It's not just a camera, it's one of the best cameras for Linux. I don't see many alternatives.
The second point is negative experience and negative image of that free software community. It shows clear that it does not want to coexist with proprietary software. Hey, if you want to beat Windows you need many applications, many people should work on them, and they would not work 8 hr a day for free. The result of free development is obvious if you compare say Gimp with Photoshop. Only few projects have external source of money. Apache is nice example of quality software. But wait, aren't they payed for this?
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 29, 2004 3:28 UTC (Sun) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] What did you expect Linus to do? Did you expect him to resond with: "Oh, please go on violating my license. Just because you contribute this very useful driver to us we'll look the other way. And no: no problem with the fact that you never told us about that extra license-violating functionality of the code you wrote".
Let's not try to sweeten it Posted Aug 28, 2004 6:28 UTC (Sat) by tincat2 (guest, #24322) [Link] i've got to agree with you-seems like something could have beenworked out here. i've been using this cam for three years now and have been grateful to the driver author for not only the driver, but for the info and advice he provides on his Philips webcam site. sometimes i feel he is a little arch in his comments to the user, but he's doing a lot of work for a non paying, often barely, if at all, grateful clientele. in any case, i don't believe i would have approached him brassily concerning this situation, were i the kernel maintainer. that's not to say that's what i think happened and keeping the kernel open makes sense in terms of stability and licensing issues. but it also seems to make sense to facilitate closed source functionality to the linux user as much as possible. linux is a very good thing and should be available to as many users as possible, including those who can and would just as soon pay someone for a ready made solid solution that plugs right in-linux needs to assimilate closed source as a path to a user base significant enough to prevent the coming attempts at a virtual lockout by hardware manufacturers in collusion with the dominant software producer.
|
|
||||||||||||