Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Greg KH]

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.

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:26 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 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.

> 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'.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Prakash K. Cheemplavam]

> 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

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> 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

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:

> 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!

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Alan Stern]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> 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

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Ian Romanick]

Wouter Van Hemel wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 
>> 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.

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 02:51:01PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> > 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

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Ian Romanick wrote:

>> 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.

> [...]
> 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?

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Brian Litzinger]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:26:13AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

-- 
Brian Litzinger

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Jeff Kinz]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> > 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.   :)

> > 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.

> 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.

-- 
Idealism:  "Realism applied over a longer time period"

Jeff Kinz

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[viro]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2004 at 10:31:57AM -0700, Brian Litzinger wrote:
> 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*

Re: Summarizing the PWC driver questions/answers

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 19:31 2004-08-30, Brian Litzinger wrote:
>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


-- 
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@lavrsen.dk
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk