| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
More conversation linksMore conversation linksPosted Aug 27, 2004 20:01 UTC (Fri) by wcooley (guest, #1233)In reply to: More conversation links by lucat Parent article: Linux loses the Philips webcam driver
He did not demand the removal; he asked and it was removed as a matter of courtesy and because it has no maintainer. Because it is open source, users are still able to use the patch (if you can find it, which I'm sure you can). You are also free to continue maintaining and developing it. If you read the e-mail Greg linked to below, you'll see he would accept the patch back with a new maintainer.
(Log in to post comments)
More conversation links Posted Aug 27, 2004 20:12 UTC (Fri) by lucat (guest, #15102) [Link] > In case the answer is "No", then I will:> - demand that the PWC driver is removed from any further Linux kernel > releases; Open source or not, it"s still _my_ work.
It looks like a demand to me.
Bye,
More conversation links Posted Aug 27, 2004 20:19 UTC (Fri) by lucat (guest, #15102) [Link] I also want to add this... it seems to me that Nemosoft believes that the contract that he signed with Philips (the _expired_ NDA) is more important than the contract that he signed with everyone of us (the GPL).He can for sure think this... it is his right to do so... but this should also warn us that accepting closed-source code inside the Kernel will make our hardware dependent on the decisions of a particular company. When they will stop supporting new Kernel versions we will be forced to change our perfectly working hardware... this is unacceptable to me (when i buy something i want to be free to use it how i want and for how long i want) and this is why we should strongly oppose binary-only drivers in Linux. This is my opinion at least.
Bye,
More conversation links Posted Aug 30, 2004 3:58 UTC (Mon) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link] The GPL is not a contract, it's a license to copy.
|
|
||||||||||||