pwc+pwcx is not illegal

pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Albert Cahalan]

Paulo Marques writes:

> About the legal aspects of all this, they have been
> discussed extensively in the past. It is not about
> "hey this is just a simple hook", it is all about
> the derived work concept. This driver does absolutely
> nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to
> attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images
> from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's.
> So you can not say it is not a derived work at all.

(note: the following is not legal advice)

I think you'll find that this is not supported by
the copyright law, at least in the United States and
in any sane country.

Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your
interpretation, at least when it serves them, but
that doesn't make it the law.

What protectable elements of the kernel have been
included within the driver? I don't see any.
Like we say to SCO, where are the lines of code?
Remember, nobody is distributing a kernel with
this driver linked in. Merely loading the driver
is obviously fair use of the kernel.

(BTW, something which is required for operation
is not protectable. See the Sega v. Accolade case.
Thus, mere usage of header files won't do. You
couldn't even use the C header files on any UNIX
system if that were the case. Let's not be silly.)

Is it "non-literal copying" that concerns you?
Heh. OK. Name the jurisdiction you like, and
describe the copyright infringement test accepted
by the courts in that jurisdiction.

For example, the US 10th Circuit uses the "abstraction,
filtration, comparison" test. The US 9th Circuit uses
the "Analytic Dissection" test. There are others.
I don't know of any such test under which the
closed-source part of the driver could be considered
to be a derived work of the Linux kernel. I can hardly
imagine one that would make the driver derived without
also making Linux derived from UNIX!

So anyway... where are the lines of code?

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Linus Torvalds]

Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?

We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. It's a gray area
legally (and whatever you say won't change that), but it's absolutely not
gray from a distribution standpoint.

AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!

So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked 
for it. 

		Linus

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Paulo Marques]

Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Paulo Marques writes:
> 
> 
>>About the legal aspects of all this, they have been
>>discussed extensively in the past. It is not about
>>"hey this is just a simple hook", it is all about
>>the derived work concept. This driver does absolutely
>>nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to
>>attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images
>>from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's.
>>So you can not say it is not a derived work at all.
> 
> 
> (note: the following is not legal advice)
> 
> I think you'll find that this is not supported by
> the copyright law, at least in the United States and
> in any sane country.
> 
> Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your
> interpretation, at least when it serves them, but
> that doesn't make it the law.

You're completely missing the point. I never said that the pwcx driver 
copies code from the kernel, and in doing so infringes copyright law.

What I'm saying is that the kernel is distributed with a license that 
allows you certain rights, and that extending the kernel functionality 
through closed source drivers is not one of those rights.

> What protectable elements of the kernel have been
> included within the driver? I don't see any.
> Like we say to SCO, where are the lines of code?
> Remember, nobody is distributing a kernel with
> this driver linked in. Merely loading the driver
> is obviously fair use of the kernel.
> 
> (BTW, something which is required for operation
> is not protectable. See the Sega v. Accolade case.
> Thus, mere usage of header files won't do. You
> couldn't even use the C header files on any UNIX
> system if that were the case. Let's not be silly.)

You're being silly, I've never said anything about header files, nor 
copied lines of code.

> Is it "non-literal copying" that concerns you?
> Heh. OK. Name the jurisdiction you like, and
> describe the copyright infringement test accepted
> by the courts in that jurisdiction.
> 
> For example, the US 10th Circuit uses the "abstraction,
> filtration, comparison" test. The US 9th Circuit uses
> the "Analytic Dissection" test. There are others.
> I don't know of any such test under which the
> closed-source part of the driver could be considered
> to be a derived work of the Linux kernel. I can hardly
> imagine one that would make the driver derived without
> also making Linux derived from UNIX!
> 
> So anyway... where are the lines of code?

It is a derived work, not a "copied" work. The point is:

 >>This driver does absolutely
 >>nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to
 >>attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images
 >>from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's.

In the case of a nvidia driver (for instance) one can argue that the 
driver was written for another well known closed source operating 
system, and was latter ported to Linux, so that we can not honestly say 
that it is a derived work.

Anyway, this is all a big gray area, with darker and lighter tones of 
gray. So you only get a definite answer in front of a judge.

This whole discussion has been beaten to death in the past. I really 
don't want to go through that again. Although I have not been directly 
involved in the past discussion, the traffic in LKML is high enough that 
it doesn't need another one of those threads...

-- 
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
Farmers' Almanac, 1978

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 21:29 2004-08-27, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
>
>We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. It's a gray area
>legally (and whatever you say won't change that), but it's absolutely not
>gray from a distribution standpoint.
>
>AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
>
>So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked
>for it.
>
>                 Linus

Try and see this from the developers perspective and then remember that he 
is a human beeing.

When I look at the postings from the past months I would say that he was 
provoked to react the way he did by the arrogant way that Greg handled it.
And from what Greg says himself that people has called him in the past (I 
will not repeat it) I would advice Greg to consider changing behavour.
Because this is what it all comes down to.
Why did Nemosoft react to hard?
When you love what you are doing and you have worked hard - not for your 
own good - but to help others - it is hard to repeatedly being treated 
badly. And there should be no need to in the open source community.

I agree that the right way to go is to get all drivers open source. And I 
think it is OK to reject new drivers.
But accepting a hook that allows a driver to use an external binary module 
for years and then suddenly remove this without making sure that it is 
replaced with something better is just plain wrong because it harms a lot 
of people.

Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry 
Linux users. I have already started contacting computer magazines and news 
papers. I just cannot accept that people can care so little for other people.

Kenneth


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

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> 
> Try and see this from the developers perspective and then remember that he 
> is a human beeing.

Hey, have you read the thread at all?

Respecting the developer is exactly why the code has been removed.

Being a developer gives you not only legal rights, but lots of other
rights. One right IT DOES NOT give you, though, is the right to add binary
hooks. That right is overridden by respecting other _developers_ rights.

Linux is all about open source. It's about making the best possible OS, 
and being as user-friendly as possible, but it's about doing so within the 
overriding goal of everybody being able to work together on the thing. 

So please respect _our_ work. 

I'm personally pretty optimistic that something can be worked out.  But it
will not happen by users whining - it will happen by users askign nemosoft
politely to avoid the kernel hooks, or by other users deciding to step up
to the plate and becoming developers.

			Linus

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:06:29 +0200
Kenneth Lavrsen <kenneth@lavrsen.dk> wrote:

> Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry 
> Linux users.

I love sensationalism.  And you're really good at twisting the
facts my friend.  People can still get their cameras working
just fine, but it's convenient for your argument that you ignore
that fact.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Paul Jakma]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> magazines and news papers. I just cannot accept that people can 
> care so little for other people.

These people do care, they created, wrote and/or maintain the Linux 
kernel in the first place! They also are wise enough to care more the 
long-term interests of Linux than just the short-term.

> Kenneth

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest
way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless.
 		-- Sinclair Lewis

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[David Ford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]


Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> [...]
> Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry 
> Linux users. I have already started contacting computer magazines and 
> news papers. I just cannot accept that people can care so little for 
> other people.
>
> Kenneth


One incredibly burning question sits before me.  Why do you spend such 
an exorbitant amount of energy wailing and hand waving over this instead 
of coming up with a solution?  You're so hellbent on making a big stink 
out of it instead of what seems to be a simple issue.  Since the driver 
already exists in multiple parts, use the existing works to come up with 
a solution.  I know Nemosoft loves his work and nobody likes getting 
pushed away.  But if the approach is wrong, find a solution that is right.

Honestly, it's pretty annoying to see people hellbent on the ruckus 
itself with little or no thought to a solution.

Make sure that gets into the editorials too.

-david


[-- Attachment #2: david+challenge-response.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 183 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:David Ford
n:Ford;David
email;internet:david@blue-labs.org
title:Industrial Geek
tel;home:Ask please
tel;cell:(203) 650-3611
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Albert Cahalan]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
> 
> We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.

Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
using hooks are illegal.

They're not nice at all, but that's a different matter.

> It's a gray area
> legally (and whatever you say won't change that),

Well, yes, but not very. If this ever goes before
a judge, betting that pwcx is ruled to be a derived
work would be a foolish way to bet.

> but it's absolutely not
> gray from a distribution standpoint.
> 
> AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> 
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked 
> for it. 

Sure. No problem, but let's not be suggesting that
this has anything to do with the law.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
> > 
> > We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.
> 
> Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
> be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
> that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
> using hooks are illegal.

No, I was trying to state that the hook itself was not allowed.  I'll
let others argue about the legality of the code using such a hook.

Sorry for any confusion about that.

greg k-h

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> 
> Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
> be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
> that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
> using hooks are illegal.

And they may be. As I said, your posturing doesn't matter. Using
specialized hooks might very well be ruled to be a sign of being a derived
work.

When you get a court ruling saying otherwise, come back stating it as 
fact. Until then, it's considered a gray area.

		Linus

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Albert Cahalan]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:34, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > Paulo Marques writes:

> >>About the legal aspects of all this, they have been
> >>discussed extensively in the past. It is not about
> >>"hey this is just a simple hook", it is all about
> >>the derived work concept. This driver does absolutely
> >>nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to
> >>attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images
> >>from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's.
> >>So you can not say it is not a derived work at all.
> > 
> > 
> > (note: the following is not legal advice)
> > 
> > I think you'll find that this is not supported by
> > the copyright law, at least in the United States and
> > in any sane country.
> > 
> > Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your
> > interpretation, at least when it serves them, but
> > that doesn't make it the law.
> 
> You're completely missing the point. I never said that the pwcx driver 
> copies code from the kernel, and in doing so infringes copyright law.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the kernel is distributed with a license that 
> allows you certain rights, and that extending the kernel functionality 
> through closed source drivers is not one of those rights.

True, but misleading.

The GPL is not an EULA contract that makes you give
up your right to extend kernel functionality.
The GPL doesn't grant you the right to read the code,
but nobody complains that code reading is prohibited.
Such activities are outside the scope of the GPL.

> It is a derived work, not a "copied" work. The point is:
> 
>  >>This driver does absolutely
>  >>nothing outside the kernel. It's only purpose is to
>  >>attach itself to the kernel and to provide the images
>  >>from the camera to userspace using the kernel ABI's.

Whatever. I don't see how that matters.

To be a derived work, some protectable element of
the kernel would have to be included. That might be
limited to lines of code, or it might include some
higher-level features like control flow. Either way,
the pwcx driver won't qualify as being derived.

The SCO Group has a better chance than you do. :-)
(and, if you're right, BAD things happen)

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Gabucino]

Guess GPL maniacs would have been happy, should avifile/MPlayer/xine never
supported loading Win32 video+audio codecs. These players are probably
considered non-GPL by Linus. Fine. Way to go, kernel developers.

Maybe you people should instead test release kernels at least with NFS before
releasing. It's kinda basic feature, ya know.

Anyway, GPL only forbids _distribution_ of GPL+binary stuff, not the
_possibility_ to use it. Time for Linus and Greg to come to their
senses.

-- 
Gabucino

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 10:15:34AM +0200, Gabucino wrote:
> Guess GPL maniacs would have been happy, should avifile/MPlayer/xine never
> supported loading Win32 video+audio codecs. These players are probably
> considered non-GPL by Linus. Fine. Way to go, kernel developers.
> 
> Maybe you people should instead test release kernels at least with NFS before
> releasing. It's kinda basic feature, ya know.
> 
> Anyway, GPL only forbids _distribution_ of GPL+binary stuff, not the
> _possibility_ to use it. Time for Linus and Greg to come to their
> senses.

Loading binary modules is considered OK in the kernel in case the binary
module was implemented independently of the kernel.

So if the same logic was applied to mplayer and win32 codecs, then that
would be considered OK.

What is not considered OK is to develop a module with the sole intent to
use it with the kernel and then distribute it as binary only. While we
kernel developers can't do much about it, at least we don't support it
by allowing specific hooks for that.

In the case of pwc+pwcx, pwcx (the decoder module) is completely useless
without pwc (the driver module), and thus is obviously falling in the
second class described above.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

>In the case of pwc+pwcx, pwcx (the decoder module) is completely useless
>without pwc (the driver module), and thus is obviously falling in the
>second class described above.

It was accepted for 4 years.
And then suddenly is was crippled without a replacement - because of a 
personal disagreement.
This is the issue.
Not the principle. Not the spirit of GPL which I support. I don't know why 
so many of you always turn these debates into a matter of law and rules.

The issue that I keep on raising that that none of the kernel maintainers 
will answer is.

- Do you care about the 10000s of users that you harm?
- Do you care at all about anything else than yourself and your principles?
- Could this have been handled in a better way that would lead to the 
pwc/pwcx being handled according to the new policy and so that the users 
would not be affected?

Too many of you keep on defending bad behavour hiding behind the GPL.

When a commercial company sells something and cuts support too early - the 
customers complain and stop buying more products from that supplier.
Many companies have for this reason discovered that the only way to run a 
successful business is to be driven by the "Total Customer Satisfaction" 
principle.
I am sure many of you are familiar with it from your daytime jobs.

Kenneth


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

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Adrian Bunk]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 02:18:54PM +0200, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> 
> >In the case of pwc+pwcx, pwcx (the decoder module) is completely useless
> >without pwc (the driver module), and thus is obviously falling in the
> >second class described above.
> 
> It was accepted for 4 years.
> And then suddenly is was crippled without a replacement - because of a 
> personal disagreement.

Which "personal disagreement"?

There was a hook for a binary-only module in the kernel, and as soon as 
Greg was made aware of it he removed it.

> This is the issue.
> Not the principle. Not the spirit of GPL which I support. I don't know why 
> so many of you always turn these debates into a matter of law and rules.
> 
> The issue that I keep on raising that that none of the kernel maintainers 
> will answer is.
> 
> - Do you care about the 10000s of users that you harm?
> - Do you care at all about anything else than yourself and your principles?

The policy in the kernel is quite liberal concerning non-free code 
(compare with e.g. the FSF and Debian).

I'd prefer it if non-GPL modules were completely forbidden, but although 
Linus stated himself that binary-only modules are a pain in the ass, 
they are tolerated in the Linux kernel.

> - Could this have been handled in a better way that would lead to the 
> pwc/pwcx being handled according to the new policy and so that the users 
> would not be affected?

Which "new policy"?

The fact that hooks for non-free modules are not allowed isn't new.

> Too many of you keep on defending bad behavour hiding behind the GPL.

If non-GPL modules were simply completely forbidden, there would be no  
reason for you to complain...

> When a commercial company sells something and cuts support too early - the 
> customers complain and stop buying more products from that supplier.
> Many companies have for this reason discovered that the only way to run a 
> successful business is to be driven by the "Total Customer Satisfaction" 
> principle.
> I am sure many of you are familiar with it from your daytime jobs.

Thankfully, the Linux kernel development is leaded by people for whom 
technical things are more important than marketing issues.

There are many examples like e.g. EVMS or the current reiser4 
discussion where "we really need it because of $important_reason" code 
isn't accepted as it is for this or that technical reason.

I might not always agree with a specific decision, but generally it 
leads in the long term to a better kernel.

> Kenneth

cu
Adrian

-- 

       "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
        of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
       "Only a promise," Lao Er said.
                                       Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

>
> > It was accepted for 4 years.
> > And then suddenly is was crippled without a replacement - because of a
> > personal disagreement.
>
>Which "personal disagreement"?

Anyone with just a little human sensitivity can see from the postings that 
are available between Greg and Nemosoft that there is a bad karma between 
them and that they could not communicate. And I read Gregs act as very 
arrogant.


>There was a hook for a binary-only module in the kernel, and as soon as
>Greg was made aware of it he removed it.

Yes. As soon as he found out he removed it. WHY as soon as he was made 
aware of it? After 4 years in the kernel. WHY did he have to remove the 
hook right away before a replacement code was written? WHY was this so 
important? WHY couldn't it wait - maybe a month or two until Nemosoft had 
an alternative way to do it ready? Why was there no open dialog about how 
to get things straight again?
This is the issue. Not weather binary modules should be allowed or not. I 
agree with keeping the kernel GPL. It is the way you did it and again. DO 
YOU CARE ABOUT THE USERS?


> > - Do you care about the 10000s of users that you harm?
> > - Do you care at all about anything else than yourself and your principles?
>
>The policy in the kernel is quite liberal concerning non-free code
>(compare with e.g. the FSF and Debian).
>
>I'd prefer it if non-GPL modules were completely forbidden, but although
>Linus stated himself that binary-only modules are a pain in the ass,
>they are tolerated in the Linux kernel.

Again you avoid the question by hising behind the GPL like a chicken.
Do you care about the 10000s of users?

> > - Could this have been handled in a better way that would lead to the
> > pwc/pwcx being handled according to the new policy and so that the users
> > would not be affected?
>
>Which "new policy"?
>The fact that hooks for non-free modules are not allowed isn't new.

The hook was there for 4 years. Don't come and say that no kernel 
developers knew that there was a binary module called pwcx.
You can find open discussions about it way back. Maybe Greg personally did 
not know but some of the rest of you knew about pwcx. Some of you even have 
a Logitech 3000 or 4000 camera. Don't play the "We did not know" game here.

And the fact that it has been there for many years simply cannot be argued. 
It has de facto been tolerated for years and 10000s of users depends on it.
It should have been replaced later. Not crippled now. That is the point!!!!

>Thankfully, the Linux kernel development is leaded by people for whom
>technical things are more important than marketing issues.

Total Customer Satisfaction is not marketing. It is a matter of treating 
other people in a decent way. It is a matter of being a good citizen.

>There are many examples like e.g. EVMS or the current reiser4
>discussion where "we really need it because of $important_reason" code
>isn't accepted as it is for this or that technical reason.
>I might not always agree with a specific decision, but generally it
>leads in the long term to a better kernel.

The kernel does not get better because the pwc driver is crippled here and 
now leaving the users with a problem - instead of being replaced by 
something better in a controlled way.
The kernel does not get better by treating a kernel module contributor in 
an arrogant way by modifying the his code with no real dialog.
The kernel gets better by correcting things in a way that makes it appear 
stable over time and encourage more people to participate. Not by chasing 
them away.

That is the point.
Or in other words.

- Do the changes so that the users are not negatively impacted more than 
necessary. Care about the users!

- Threat the contributors of any OSS with more respect and do not be 
arrogant. You should not be proud of people calling you bad names.

It is OK that you don't want binary non GPL hooks in the kernel. That is 
not the argument. So please stop attacking something I never said.

Kenneth
-- 

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

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked 
> for it. 

Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
don't like the new attitude .. so ner..

Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author
had a tantrum. Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space
where it should be anyway. Similarly the driver is useful without the
binary stuff.

Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;)

Alan

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Alan Cox]

On Sad, 2004-08-28 at 14:11, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> There was a hook for a binary-only module in the kernel, and as soon as 
> Greg was made aware of it he removed it.

Sure - removing hooks good, removing entire driver when its still useful
*BAD*. Pretty simple really.

And moving decompress logic to user space even better.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Alan Cox]

On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a 
> matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you 
> need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name 
> attached to that.

It works very well for some users without that code. The raw pass
through for the compressed bitstreams solved the problems for the rest.
You appear to be seeking to hurt your userbase for your own ends. Thats
not pleasant behaviour.  I can more than understand
"take my name off it, make it clear its nothing to do with me".

> > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space 
> > where it should be anyway. 
> 
> *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome 
> for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to 
> adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). 

Video4linux has -always- specified decompressors in user space. This was
pointed out ages ago. V4L2 rationalised it even more clearly.

> *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose 
> much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.
> 
> (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)

No its for userspace. Just add it to the relevant video frameworks.

> Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the 
> driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I 
> never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its 
> purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably 
> have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the 
> kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been 
> acceptable.

Back in 2001 I was saying that this was broken and it belonged in user
space.

> of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll 
> leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, 
> etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're 
> asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have 
> been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).

There isn't a plan to have a 2.7 development tree but to do gradual
development until something major comes up. That makes the suggestion
rather more tricky - as does the legal question.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Nemosoft Unv.]

Hello,

On Sunday 29 August 2004 16:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author
> > asked for it.
>
> Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.

No, don't! There is one very practial reason for that: the utter confusion 
it will cause when suddenly PWCX cannot be loaded anymore, because users 
will assume that since PWC is in the kernel, PWCX will work too. I really 
would not like to be at the receiving end of the support mailbox when 2.6.9 
comes out with such a crippled version of PWC.

That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a 
matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you 
need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name 
attached to that.

> If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
> don't like the new attitude .. so ner..
>
> Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author
> had a tantrum. 

I'm not having a tantrum. If it is, it has been one in the making for 3 
years.

> Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space 
> where it should be anyway. 

*sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome 
for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to 
adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). 

I mean, I still remember when the YUV->RGB conversion code was snipped from 
PWC when I supplied it for inclusing in the kernel, back in 2001. It took a 
long, long time for webcam tools to adjust their code to check for the YUV 
palette and do the conversion themselves, and _to_this_very_day_ I'm 
getting mails about programs who still don't get it right.

*IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose 
much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.

(maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)

> Similarly the driver is useful without the binary stuff.

True. But judging from the mails I have received the last couple of days,
people don't really care about the binary stuff, as long as it works. They 
want to use the cam to its full potential, so PWCX is more or less a 
necessity. However, there's has now been added an extra hurdle in getting 
it work, for reasons I find questionable, and really, 3 years too late.

Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the 
driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I 
never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its 
purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably 
have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the 
kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been 
acceptable.

Another acceptable solution would have been, if after the 'discovery' of the 
hook, Greg or anybody else had said: "Look, we really don't want this kind 
of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll 
leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, 
etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're 
asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have 
been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).

> Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;)

*lol* The code is still floating around on the Net, so nobody's stopping 
you... 

 - Nemosoft


[*] Some advice: if you really want to speed up V4L2 adoption by video 
tools, start disabling V4L1 in the kernel... 

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Norbert van Nobelen]

Hi,

A part of this discussion has to do with the expiration of the NDA covering 
pwcx. Can you disclose the NDA?
Also a person on the list tried to contact the correct person within Philips. 
Can you disclose the contact person or department which you used about 3 
years ago?

Best regards,

Norbert van Nobelen

On Sunday 29 August 2004 18:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sunday 29 August 2004 16:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author
> > > asked for it.
> >
> > Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
>
> No, don't! There is one very practial reason for that: the utter confusion
> it will cause when suddenly PWCX cannot be loaded anymore, because users
> will assume that since PWC is in the kernel, PWCX will work too. I really
> would not like to be at the receiving end of the support mailbox when 2.6.9
> comes out with such a crippled version of PWC.
>
> That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also
> a matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when
> you need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my
> name attached to that.
>
> > If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
> > don't like the new attitude .. so ner..
> >
> > Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author
> > had a tantrum.
>
> I'm not having a tantrum. If it is, it has been one in the making for 3
> years.
>
> > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space
> > where it should be anyway.
>
> *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical,
> cumbersome for both users and developers, and will probably take a very
> long time to adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]).
>
> I mean, I still remember when the YUV->RGB conversion code was snipped from
> PWC when I supplied it for inclusing in the kernel, back in 2001. It took a
> long, long time for webcam tools to adjust their code to check for the YUV
> palette and do the conversion themselves, and _to_this_very_day_ I'm
> getting mails about programs who still don't get it right.
>
> *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not
> pose much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.
>
> (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)
>
> > Similarly the driver is useful without the binary stuff.
>
> True. But judging from the mails I have received the last couple of days,
> people don't really care about the binary stuff, as long as it works. They
> want to use the cam to its full potential, so PWCX is more or less a
> necessity. However, there's has now been added an extra hurdle in getting
> it work, for reasons I find questionable, and really, 3 years too late.
>
> Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the
> driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I
> never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its
> purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably
> have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the
> kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been
> acceptable.
>
> Another acceptable solution would have been, if after the 'discovery' of
> the hook, Greg or anybody else had said: "Look, we really don't want this
> kind of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react,
> we'll leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that
> (2.7-devel, etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time,
> we're asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would
> have been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).
>
> > Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;)
>
> *lol* The code is still floating around on the Net, so nobody's stopping
> you...
>
>  - Nemosoft
>
>
> [*] Some advice: if you really want to speed up V4L2 adoption by video
> tools, start disabling V4L1 in the kernel...
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:42:24 +0100 Alan Cox wrote:

| On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
| > That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a 
| > matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you 
| > need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name 
| > attached to that.
| 
| It works very well for some users without that code. The raw pass
| through for the compressed bitstreams solved the problems for the rest.
| You appear to be seeking to hurt your userbase for your own ends. Thats
| not pleasant behaviour.  I can more than understand
| "take my name off it, make it clear its nothing to do with me".
| 
| > > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space 
| > > where it should be anyway. 
| > 
| > *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome 
| > for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to 
| > adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). 
| 
| Video4linux has -always- specified decompressors in user space. This was
| pointed out ages ago. V4L2 rationalised it even more clearly.
| 
| > *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose 
| > much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.
| > 
| > (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)
| 
| No its for userspace. Just add it to the relevant video frameworks.
| 
| > Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the 
| > driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I 
| > never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its 
| > purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably 
| > have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the 
| > kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been 
| > acceptable.
| 
| Back in 2001 I was saying that this was broken and it belonged in user
| space.

Yes, that's right, and it should be done by now...
We kept expecting updates in that direction.

| > of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll 
| > leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, 
| > etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're 
| > asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have 
| > been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).
| 
| There isn't a plan to have a 2.7 development tree but to do gradual
| development until something major comes up. That makes the suggestion
| rather more tricky - as does the legal question.


--
~Randy

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Brian Litzinger]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:26:26PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> 
> >magazines and news papers. I just cannot accept that people can 
> >care so little for other people.
> 
> These people do care, they created, wrote and/or maintain the Linux 
> kernel in the first place! They also are wise enough to care more the 
> long-term interests of Linux than just the short-term.

So we have to step on a few people on the way to build our great
an glorious utopia!  Well at leat it is for their own good.

-- 
Brian Litzinger

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Rogier Wolff]

I don't want to get into the whole discussion. However, 

--------------------

int pwcx_init_decompress_Timon (int a,int b,int c, int d)

{
  return pwc_init_decompress_common (a, c, d); 
}

void pwcx_exit_decompress_Timon (void)
{
}

int pwcx_init_decompress_Kiara (int a,int b,int c, int d)

{
  return pwc_init_decompress_common (a, c, d); 
}

void pwcx_exit_decompress_Kiara (void)
{
}

--------------------

compiles with 

	gcc -m486 -Wall -O2 pwcx_test.c -S

into the same assembly as found in libpwcx.a ...

	Roger. 

-- 
** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2600998 **
*-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --*
**** "Linux is like a wigwam -  no windows, no gates, apache inside!" ****