AVerTV Hybrid Volar MAX (H826) wiki entry

AVerTV Hybrid Volar MAX (H826) wiki entry

[Brian J. Murrell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1197 bytes --]

Hi,

I was looking at the wiki for the supported status of the AVerMedia
AVerTV Hybrid Volar MAX (H826).  The wiki says it's not supported.  But
the wiki also says it's a PCIe card, which it's clearly not:
http://www.avermedia-usa.com/AVerTV/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=431

Additionally in the AP & Driver tab of that page
(http://www.avermedia-usa.com/AVerTV/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=431&tab=APDriver)
there is a Linux driver which appears to have (granted, non-GPL) source
included with it.  But surely given source to a working driver, a
cleanroom GPL driver could be developed and supported, yes?  Maybe that
source is just "supporting" source for a binary blob.  I didn't look
that closely.

In any case, I am just wondering what the real supported status of that
device is given that the wiki is incorrect about at least some details
of the device.

Even if it's not supported, somebody with more understanding of this
device than I (I've just read a product page) ought to fix the wiki.  In
fixing it, I think it's only fair to point to the vendor supplied
driver, even if it's not open source and/or not a compatible open source
license.

Cheers,
b.



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: AVerTV Hybrid Volar MAX (H826) wiki entry

[Devin Heitmueller]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Brian J. Murrell <brian@interlinx.bc.ca> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at the wiki for the supported status of the AVerMedia
> AVerTV Hybrid Volar MAX (H826).  The wiki says it's not supported.  But
> the wiki also says it's a PCIe card, which it's clearly not:
> http://www.avermedia-usa.com/AVerTV/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=431
>
> Additionally in the AP & Driver tab of that page
> (http://www.avermedia-usa.com/AVerTV/Product/ProductDetail.aspx?Id=431&tab=APDriver)
> there is a Linux driver which appears to have (granted, non-GPL) source
> included with it.  But surely given source to a working driver, a
> cleanroom GPL driver could be developed and supported, yes?  Maybe that
> source is just "supporting" source for a binary blob.  I didn't look
> that closely.
>
> In any case, I am just wondering what the real supported status of that
> device is given that the wiki is incorrect about at least some details
> of the device.
>
> Even if it's not supported, somebody with more understanding of this
> device than I (I've just read a product page) ought to fix the wiki.  In
> fixing it, I think it's only fair to point to the vendor supplied
> driver, even if it's not open source and/or not a compatible open source
> license.

They've got a history of violating the GPL by shipping closed source
binary drivers which link against GPL'd DVB drivers (thereby
leveraging the hard work of the developers who GPL'd drivers, while
not giving any of their stuff back).

I cannot speak for the other developers but I wont' go near this crap
with a ten foot pole.

Devin

-- 
Devin J. Heitmueller - Kernel Labs
http://www.kernellabs.com