Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Craig Milo Rogers <rogers@isi.edu>]

On 04.08.28, Rob van Nieuwkerk wrote:
> 	The author of the pwc driver has publicly stated that this
> 	NDA has expired more than 1 year ago !!!
> 
> Despite this he refuses to release the source code for the binary-only
> driver.  Of course it is his right to do so: it is his code.
> But I think it is important for everyone to know this fact.

	I agree that everyone should know this.  It shows remarkable
integrity and restraint on Nemosoft's part, and is, I feel, in
concordance with the values that Linux recently expressed in his
message regarding the GPL and lawyers.

	In one of Nemosoft's messages, he said that we wasn't
releasing proprietary data on the Philips chips, even though his NDA
has expired, because (and I'm paraphrasing here) he wants to maintain
a good working relationship with Philips.  I believe that this is an
important point, and a critical one for long-term success.  We, the
Linux community, should want Philips to voluntarily release the
details on their chips.  This is important because we should want
Philips to release *new* programming details on *new* chips in a
timely fashion; preferably, in an open-source-conformant fashion.

	As you can see, if Nemosoft were to unilaterally breach
Philips' confidence in him, then Philips might stop telling him the
programming details on new chips.  Linux would potentially have
working open source drivers for older chips, but potentially no
drivers at all, open or closed source, for new chips by this
manufacturer.

					Craig Milo Rogers