Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers
So, I've gotten a lot of emails about this topic, so I'll just answer them all here in public, and point people at them when they ask them again:
First off, here's Nemosoft's big post about the driver, please read that first, and the responses to that thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.usb.devel/26310
And here's Linus's response after I removed the driver, when Nemosoft asked me to:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/229968
Oh, and there's now a lwn.net thread too:
http://lwn.net/Articles/99615/
Ok, on to the questions:
Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I had to take it out.
Q: That hook had been in there for years! Why did you suddenly decide
to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
good for a binary module to use. I'm sorry, I should have realized this years ago, but I didn't. Recently someone pointed this hook out to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had no choice but to remove it.
Q: Why did you delete the whole pwc driver from the tree?
A: That is what the original author (Nemosoft) wanted to happen. It was
his request, and I honored it. Go ask him why he wanted it out if you are upset about this, I merely accepted his decision as he was the current maintainer and author of the code.
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision. The kernel also has to abide by
it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go. Remember, the original driver was released under the GPL, so you are free to take that code and maintain it if you so desire. I'd gladly support someone taking the GPL code and agreeing to maintain it, and resubmitting it for inclusion in the main kernel tree. That's the freedom that Linux provides, no closed source OS would allow you to do that, if a company pulled support for a product (which happens all the time.)
Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
costing me money by ripping it out. You should be ashamed of yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom. If it means that much to you,
then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
A: Duh! What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
stating for years, in public. Binary drivers only take from Linux, they do not give back anything. See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote address for more information and background on this topic.
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
Quoted 1 line · Greg KH
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
The GPL provides is a very _specific_ kind of freedom. It has its own restrictions -- in many ways it's less free than if we were to just release our code to the public domain, or under a BSD-style licence.
That is intentional.
Quoted 2 lines
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be gently encouraged to go elsewhere?
Linus was _joking_ when he said 'world domination'.
Signature · 1 line
dwmw2
Quoted 7 lines · David Woodhouse
Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be gently encouraged to go elsewhere?
Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting results from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some seem to think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to Linux. This attitude contributes nothing to Linux. If you don't like a partially binary driver, then I suggest you, too, contact Philips instead of turning on your own users and contributors, or fighting with driver maintainers that simply can't change the world to fit your wishes. We are all in this mess, we all want good working drivers, preferably opensource.
If the opensource principle really is that important to you, I invite you to send an email to Philips like the rest of us. And not attack people for wanting to have their hardware in a working state, or turning this into a BSD vs. GPL discussion.
Here: http://www.philips.com/
Thanks in advance!
Quoted 10 lines · Wouter Van Hemel
Quoted 6 lines · David Woodhouse
Again, that is intentional. People are free to go use BSD if the GPL is not compatible with their desires. Or Windows, perhaps.
People seem to be whining that Linux is released under the GPL instead of a BSD licence. Perhaps the users concerned should be gently encouraged to go elsewhere?
Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting results from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some seem to think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to Linux. This attitude contributes nothing to Linux. If you don't like a partially binary driver, then I suggest you, too, contact Philips instead of turning on your own users and contributors, or fighting with driver maintainers that simply can't change the world to fit your wishes. We are all in this mess, we all want good working drivers, preferably opensource.
You've got things a little out of perspective.
1. Linux does not serve Philips.
2. Philips does not serve Linux.
Can we agree on that much?
3. Linux's licensing (i.e., the GPL) does not allow partial closed-source drivers.
You can agree or disagree with that until your face falls off. That is the way that it is. Allowing a license violation to continue would set a bad precedent that goes beyond open-source dogma. It has nothing to do with zealotry. It *is* a legal issue. You're not free to pick and choose the parts of the license you like or don't like. Using a license, ANY license, is like being pregnant: there is no half-way.
4. Philips serves *its* customers.
The logical conclusion is that, one way or another, Philips needs to make a driver available that is compatible with Linux's licensing. It can do that or decide that it doesn't care about its customers that use Linux. The license really doesn't leave room for a third option.
Further bickering about it here is an exercise in futility.
Quoted 9 lines · Ian Romanick
Quoted 1 line
Very constructive. If you would use this zealotry energy in getting results from Philips, we might not be here arguing. I get the feeling some seem to think of the removal of this popular driver as a *contribution* to Linux. This attitude contributes nothing to Linux. If you don't like a partially binary driver, then I suggest you, too, contact Philips instead of turning on your own users and contributors, or fighting with driver maintainers that simply can't change the world to fit your wishes. We are all in this mess, we all want good working drivers, preferably opensource.
You've got things a little out of perspective.
1. Linux does not serve Philips.
2. Philips does not serve Linux.Can we agree on that much?
Sure.
Quoted 3 lines
[...]
Further bickering about it here is an exercise in futility.
True. That's why I suggested that every developer who want this driver removed, also stays true in their dedication for open drivers, delivers some *constructive* action and emails Philips or whatever company of the day that needs some convincing. Not just shooting down what you don't like and being impossibly hard to people like Nemosoft who are caught between two fires. If you care about opensource, equally much time would be spent in (1) giving a minimal try to get it opensource, and (2) having a constructive dialog with the maintainer. It can't take more time than having these fights, can it?
Quoted 3 lines
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
This was a good one. ;-)
Prakash
Hi,
Quoted 1 line · Greg KH
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
We cannot take something away, you never had to begin with. The GPL gives you the freedom to modify the source of your driver. If you decide to relinquish this freedom by using a binary driver, we respect this decision, but this also means we cannot help you if something goes wrong with this driver.
bye, Roman
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I had to take it out.
Can you say exactly where these procedures/policies are spelled out?
Alan Stern
Quoted 8 lines · Alan Stern
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I had to take it out.Can you say exactly where these procedures/policies are spelled out?
See Linus's response on this thread for a statement of such a policy.
As to where they are written down, I don't know, sorry.
greg k-h
Quoted 4 lines · Greg KH
Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I had to take it out.
I think Greg "chose" to take it out.
Quoted 8 lines
Q: That hook had been in there for years! Why did you suddenly decide
to remove it now?
A: I was really not aware of the hook, and the fact that it was only
good for a binary module to use. I'm sorry, I should have realized this years ago, but I didn't. Recently someone pointed this hook out to me, and the fact that it really didn't belong in there due to the kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had no choice but to remove it.
I do not believe he "had no choice". The guards at Auswitchs made the same argument at Nuremberg. The tribunal determined they did have a choice. I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme then there.
Quoted 3 lines
Q: But you took away my freedom! Isn't Linux about freedom?
A: Again, it was Nemosoft's decision. The kernel also has to abide by
it's documented procedures, so that is why the hook had to go.
The kernel cannot act itself. It is more or less an inanimate object. People must carry out actions on its behalf.
Quoted 5 lines
Q: You jerk, I had invested lots of money in this camera, you are
costing me money by ripping it out. You should be ashamed of yourself!
A: See the above question about freedom. If it means that much to you,
then offer to maintain the code, it's that simple.
This confuses me. The functionability people are after is the closed source part. Maintaining the open source portion seems unrelated.
Quoted 6 lines
Q: You are keeping companies from wanting to write binary drivers for
Linux.
A: Duh! What do you think all of the kernel developers have been
stating for years, in public. Binary drivers only take from Linux, they do not give back anything. See Andrew Morton's OLS 2004 keynote address for more information and background on this topic.
I disagree. Binary drivers may take away from Linux and they may add to it.
Quoted 3 lines
Q: You are a fundamentalist turd / jerk / pompous ass /
GNU-freebeer-biased-idiot-fundamentalist fucktard / ignorant slut!
A: I've been called worse by better people, get over yourself.
I think from statements Greg made above we can at least say he is willing to hide behind misplaced authority.
Signature · 1 line
Brian Litzinger
Quoted 6 lines · Brian Litzinger
Quoted 4 lines
Q: Why did you remove the hook from the pwc driver?
A: It was there for the explicit purpose to support a binary only
module. That goes against the kernel's documented procedures, so I had to take it out.I think Greg "chose" to take it out.
True, No one was holding a gun to his head. :)
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines
it really didn't belong in there due to the kernel's policy of such hooks. So, once I became aware of it, I had no choice but to remove it.
I do not believe he "had no choice". The guards at Auswitchs made the same argument at Nuremberg.
[*** Nice "subtle" technique to call someone a Nazi. Real smooth!]
I "choose" to stop at stop signs and red lights. Yay me.
Quoted 1 line
I disagree. Binary drivers may take away from Linux and they may add to it.
My experiences: Binary drivers make Linux harder to support, harder to distribute, harder to administrate and harder to maintain in production.
While they provide short term benefits, their long term impact is negative. One example: What happens when company X goes out of business or stops supporting the device?
A decision has been made: My understanding is that the Binary portion is moving to user space and the devices in question will still function as a result.
Please move it off the kernel list.
Signature · 3 lines
Idealism: "Realism applied over a longer time period" Jeff Kinz
Quoted 4 lines · Brian Litzinger
I do not believe he "had no choice". The guards at Auswitchs made the same argument at Nuremberg. The tribunal determined they did have a choice. I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme then there.
*PLONK*
Quoted 4 lines · Brian Litzinger
I do not believe he "had no choice". The guards at Auswitchs made the same argument at Nuremberg. The tribunal determined they did have a choice. I doubt we can consider the conditions here more extreme then there.
I would like to put a great deal of distance between myself and the oppinions I and others have expressed concerning a little driver for a camera - and the unacceptable analogy expressed above.
Brian! - comparing Nazies that exterminated millions of people in gas chambers with a guy that annoys some people that happens to own a webcamera is disgusting.
I do not want anyone to think that I - in any way - am associated with the above repulsive statement.
Kenneth
Signature · 4 lines
Kenneth Lavrsen, Glostrup, Denmark [email protected] Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk