The return of PWC

The return of PWC

[Nemosoft Unv.]

Hello Greg, Luc

I've been out of the loop for a while, but today I was informed that PWC is 
about to return to the main Linux kernel tree, in some form. In fact, it's 
already in 2.4.12rc3.

Unfortunately, the current implementation is not acceptable. First, there 
are still some references to the old website 
(http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam) en e-mail address. But that's no big 
deal. What's more of a problem, though, is the decompressor code that is 
being included.

In case you hadn't noticed, that code has been reverse compiled (I would not 
even call it "reverse engineered"), and is simply illegal. Maybe not in 
every country, but certainly in some. There are still some intellectual 
property rights being violated here, you know, and I'm surprised at the 
contempt you and Linux kernel maintainers show in this regard for a few 
lines of the law.

Now don't get started on "it was GPL code before you left bla bla" or "you 
should not have abonded the project bla bla blah" and "this court here has 
ruled reverse engineering is allowed and so on mumble mumble". 

I abandoned the project, true. But PWC was (and is) GPL, so if somebody  
wanted to do the maintenance, that's fine because that is the intent, after 
all. Even if that person grabbed the pre-compiled binaries and started 
maintaining with that, that would have been borderline, but okay. But 
you're crossing the line here with PWCX (the decompressor). If it was 
truely reverse engineered, by studying the bitstream and trying to figure 
out the algorithms, then that would have been a remarkable feat. But how 
dare you decompile binary code, slap a GPL header on it and try to return 
it to the kernel as if everything's alright now?

Anyway, I'll inform my contacts at Philips tomorrow. I don't know how they 
will react; maybe they'll go nuts, maybe they'll let it pass quitely; it's 
hard to tell. Either way, you're putting yourself in a precarious situation 
here. Clearly, this code was not intended to be included in the kernel 
source, it has been obtained by rather dubious means and, above all, I 
don't think the GPL was ever intended for this kind of "relabelling". I 
call it theft.

So I seriously suggest you do not put the module back into the kernel in 
this form.

Regards,

 - Nemosoft Unv.

Re: The return of PWC

[Greg KH]

On Mon, May 02, 2005 at 02:29:35AM +0200, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> Hello Greg, Luc
> 
> I've been out of the loop for a while, but today I was informed that PWC is 
> about to return to the main Linux kernel tree, in some form. In fact, it's 
> already in 2.4.12rc3.

Actually, it had been in the -ac tree for quite some time, and Alan Cox
was the one that sent the driver to Linus.  I suggest you take up your
objections to this inclusion with him please.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: The return of PWC

[Alan Cox]

On Llu, 2005-05-02 at 01:29, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> In case you hadn't noticed, that code has been reverse compiled (I would not 
> even call it "reverse engineered"), and is simply illegal. Maybe not in 
> every country, but certainly in some. There are still some intellectual 
> property rights being violated here, you know, and I'm surprised at the 
> contempt you and Linux kernel maintainers show in this regard for a few 
> lines of the law.

Reverse engineering in the EU for compatibility is legal. It was done in
the EU. Linux exists because the law is sensible and allows such
actions, its the same reason you aren't still buying all your flush
toilets from Thomas Crapper & Son.

> Now don't get started on "it was GPL code before you left bla bla" or "you 
> should not have abonded the project bla bla blah" and "this court here has 
> ruled reverse engineering is allowed and so on mumble mumble". 

Don't like facts ? The legal position on reverse engineering is in
general fairly clear. What you describe might not be. If so then we need
to find someone who hasn't read the code to rewrite it from the
algorithm description of the current code. Shouldn't take more than a
week.

[Its the difference between disassembling the code and publishing a form
of the disassembly and writing a new implementation of the algorithm.
One is copyright violation the other is reverse engineering]

> Anyway, I'll inform my contacts at Philips tomorrow. I don't know how they 
> will react; maybe they'll go nuts, maybe they'll let it pass quitely; it's 

I *am* concerned by your comments about how the reverse work may have
been done, and whether proper process was followed. I'd be greatful if
you would forward me your contact at Philips too. You are considered as
having an axe to grind and I'd rather discussion occurred between
Philips and the Linux community than via yourself.

You've also said yourself that the NDA you had was expired so the
previous lack of a GPL module is your personal agenda and nothing to do
with anyone else. That makes me wonder what your real goal is.

Alan

Re: The return of PWC

[Rob van Nieuwkerk]

On Mon, 2 May 2005 02:29:35 +0200
"Nemosoft Unv." <nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl> wrote:

> I've been out of the loop for a while, but today I was informed that PWC is 
> about to return to the main Linux kernel tree, in some form. In fact, it's 
> already in 2.4.12rc3.
> 
> Unfortunately, the current implementation is not acceptable. First, there 
> are still some references to the old website 
> (http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam) en e-mail address. But that's no big 
> deal. What's more of a problem, though, is the decompressor code that is 
> being included.
> 
> In case you hadn't noticed, that code has been reverse compiled (I would not 
> even call it "reverse engineered"), and is simply illegal. Maybe not in 
> every country, but certainly in some. There are still some intellectual 
> property rights being violated here, you know, and I'm surprised at the 
> contempt you and Linux kernel maintainers show in this regard for a few 
> lines of the law.
> 
> Now don't get started on "it was GPL code before you left bla bla" or "you 
> should not have abonded the project bla bla blah" and "this court here has 
> ruled reverse engineering is allowed and so on mumble mumble". 
> 
> I abandoned the project, true. But PWC was (and is) GPL, so if somebody  
> wanted to do the maintenance, that's fine because that is the intent, after 
> all. Even if that person grabbed the pre-compiled binaries and started 
> maintaining with that, that would have been borderline, but okay. But 
> you're crossing the line here with PWCX (the decompressor). If it was 
> truely reverse engineered, by studying the bitstream and trying to figure 
> out the algorithms, then that would have been a remarkable feat. But how 
> dare you decompile binary code, slap a GPL header on it and try to return 
> it to the kernel as if everything's alright now?
> 
> Anyway, I'll inform my contacts at Philips tomorrow. I don't know how they 
> will react; maybe they'll go nuts, maybe they'll let it pass quitely; it's 
> hard to tell. Either way, you're putting yourself in a precarious situation 
> here. Clearly, this code was not intended to be included in the kernel 
> source, it has been obtained by rather dubious means and, above all, I 
> don't think the GPL was ever intended for this kind of "relabelling". I 
> call it theft.
> 
> So I seriously suggest you do not put the module back into the kernel in 
> this form.

Oh boy, it's Nemosoft time again ..

Just some interesting information for people not familiar with
you and the PWC story:

    +--------------------------------------------------------------+
    | The NDA you signed with Philips concerning the decompression |
    | algorithms used by PWC HAS EXPIRED ALMOST 2 YEARS AGO !!!    |
    +--------------------------------------------------------------+

You have stated this yourself on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:58:24 +0200.

It appears to me that you are very unhappy about the fact that your
childish attempt to hurt the PWC(X) users by removing your PWC stuff
from your website did not work at all.  The only result was that we very
soon had a nice completely open source driver for PWCX and that nobody
depends on you and your binary-only driver anymore.  This is perfect,
thank you very much for your actions ..

I think it's just *YOU* who doesn't like the idea of an open source PWC
decompressor, not Philips.  Maybe your Philips contacts will be able to
convince you that you're wrong ..

	greetings,
	Rob van Nieuwkerk

Re: The return of PWC

[Alan Cox]

> Oh boy, it's Nemosoft time again ..
> 
> Just some interesting information for people not familiar with
> you and the PWC story:

>     +--------------------------------------------------------------+
>     | The NDA you signed with Philips concerning the decompression |
>     | algorithms used by PWC HAS EXPIRED ALMOST 2 YEARS AGO !!!    |
>     +--------------------------------------------------------------+


The points he raised still seem valid to me. You may not like the
messenger but the message does need looking into and right now I think
he has a real point. Still waiting for his 'philips contact' to drop me
a note so I can get it all sorted out nicely.

Alan