Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Nemosoft Unv.]

Hello,

On Tuesday 24 August 2004 00:10, you wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 09:05:36AM -0700, Fr?d?ric Detienne wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 21:38, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Fr?d?ric Detienne <fd@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > I suppose this is not the only place where we
> > > >  prepare API's for modules that do not belong to the kernel tree.
> > >
> > > It _is_ the only place, and that's the problem.
> >
> > yes and no. By providing a hook, there is a chance to insert an other
> > decompressor (hopefully, a reverse engineered, open source one).
>
> Actually, in thinking about this even more, I just realized that I have
> to rip this hook out.  I say this because we are allowing a change to
> the kernel that is needed _only_ for a closed source module.  See
> Linus's comments about "if a change is needed to be made to the kernel
> in order to get a closed source module to work, that module must be made
> opensource" or something close to that.
>
> So, I'll rip this out with the next round of USB patches that I send off
> to Linus.
>
> Nemosoft, any thoughts?

Uhm, excuse me? This hook has been there since the beginning of PWC in the 
kernel, so I don't consider it a 'change'. The only change there has been 
is in the declaration part, to allow for a single type of linkage with an 
external library [*]. Actually, if they hadn't started using "Register 
parameters" in the kernel to squeeze out a a few microseconds, I wouldn't 
have had this problem, and nobody would have noticed. The real problem is 
that GCC 2.95 doesn't like 'asmlinkage' in function pointer declarations 
which is why PWC failed to compile. I was _about_ to create in a patch 
tonight that would solve this problem and make it work on both GCC 2 and 
GCC 3 again, until I read this mail. 

Anyway....

I've just about had it with the increasing 
"we-don't-want-binary-stuff-in-Linux" attitude lately. If you rip out this 
hook for PWC (pwc_register_decompressor), which would make it impossible to 
load a decompressor, closed source *OR* open source (should that happen one 
day), is going to be the last straw.

Without this hook, PWC will work, but with limitations, just as it always 
has. But the _user_ always had a choice of loading a closed source module 
to get the extras. If you, kernel developers, maintainers, etc. are going 
to take away that right from the _users_, I think you're way over head, 
forgetting what open source is about, IMO.

I accept that the Linux kernel is the work of Linus and the maintainers, and 
they can do with it as they please, but I will not accept that they can put 
arbitrary limits on the kernel's use by me, or other users.

I've been maintaining this driver for the past 4 years, and it's always been 
an uphill battle against the closed sourceness of the driver. First, it was 
completely binary, which proved to be quite a support burden but I managed. 
Then I got allowance to open source part of the driver and add it to the 
kernel, so a) the webcam could run on more platforms, b) I could narrow 
down the support issues. Then, I started introducing cross-compiled PWCX 
(decompressor) modules for a variety of platforms, so it would work on even 
more systems. In the mean time, I had to dodge several changes to the 
kernel that, intentionally or unintentionally, caused the PWCX part to 
break down. But I managed. [**] And now, finally with PWC 9, I could 
provide even better cross-platform support. All to get these webcams 
working, make _a lot_ of people happy, and make Linux the top OS it 
deserves to be. Appearantly all in vain.

To come back to Linus´s comment "if a change is needed [...] in order to get 
a closed source module to work, that module must be made opensource". Well, 
that ain't gonna work. There is no way that manufacturers are suddenly 
going to wave their hands in the air and start panicking "Oh dear, we're 
going to loose Linux support! What must we do?! Should we open source? 
Argh!" It is not going to happen. Period. Get down to earth, now.

Actually, I've got a little surprise for you. The NDA I signed with Philips 
has already expired a year ago. Yet, I didn't just throw the decompressor 
code on the Internet. First, there could still be legal remedies since the 
cams are still in production to this very day. Second, that NDA was signed 
on a basis of trust and I do not want to lose that trust. I'm looking at 
the bigger picture here: if we (Linux developers) can show we are 
trustworthy, we may be able to get better support from hardware 
manufacturers now and in the future (and really, that's what the kernel is 
for 75% about ....) I'm still in contact with Philips and who knows, maybe 
we can get all the source opened up...

Anyway, before this gets too long... I'm giving you a choice here. Either:

* you are going to accept that there is a driver in the Linux kernel that 
has a hook that _may_ be used to load a binary-only decompressor part into 
the kernel, at the user's disgression. Maybe, one day, that part will be 
open source too but I cannot guarantuee that. 

* Or, you're saying: no, we cannot allow this under any circumstance. We do 
not even want to provide the means for the theoretical possibility that a 
binary module might be loaded into the kernel (in which case you can scrap 
the whole idea of loadable modules, if you want my opinion)

Those are the options. No more, no less.

In case the answer is "No", then I will:
- demand that the PWC driver is removed from any further Linux kernel 
releases; Open source or not, it's still _my_ work.
- remove the website (http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/), all webpages and 
PWC version available for download from that site.
- shut down the bug-tracker 
- remove the PWC related mailbox from my system
- not respond to ANY mail related to PWC anymore; no user requests, no 
problem solving, no queries for information.

Basicly, the PWC driver will then be null and void. And yes, that is a 
threat, but it shows how fed up I am with this. And believe me, there are a 
lot of users who will NOT be happy. But if you (kernel peeps) show contempt 
for all the work that I have done, then I'm not going to help you anymore, 
with Linux. Simple as that. 

I'm demanding a clear, and unambiguous answer on my question, if need be 
from Linus himself. I think the status of binary-only drivers, or in this 
case, a plugin, has always been in some sort of 'legal' limbo, and that PWC 
has always more or less meandered through the gaps. Now I want to know 
where I'm standing at.

 - Nemosoft

[*] Two different version are possible, but most people would probably not 
have a clue as to how their kernel is compiled; and you won't know until 
the module Oopses...

[**] To the nitwit on /. who once said "Well, you brought that all onto 
yourself when you signed that NDA", I can only say: "Go suck a lemon", to 
quote Maj. Carter. (SG-1)

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Greg KH]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:58:24AM +0200, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> Anyway....
> 
> I've just about had it with the increasing 
> "we-don't-want-binary-stuff-in-Linux" attitude lately. If you rip out this 
> hook for PWC (pwc_register_decompressor), which would make it impossible to 
> load a decompressor, closed source *OR* open source (should that happen one 
> day), is going to be the last straw.

Well, I just made a patch that did just that, and applied it to my
trees.

> Without this hook, PWC will work, but with limitations, just as it always 
> has. But the _user_ always had a choice of loading a closed source module 
> to get the extras. If you, kernel developers, maintainers, etc. are going 
> to take away that right from the _users_, I think you're way over head, 
> forgetting what open source is about, IMO.
> 
> I accept that the Linux kernel is the work of Linus and the maintainers, and 
> they can do with it as they please, but I will not accept that they can put 
> arbitrary limits on the kernel's use by me, or other users.

Think legal limits, not arbitrary.

> Anyway, before this gets too long... I'm giving you a choice here. Either:
> 
> * you are going to accept that there is a driver in the Linux kernel that 
> has a hook that _may_ be used to load a binary-only decompressor part into 
> the kernel, at the user's disgression. Maybe, one day, that part will be 
> open source too but I cannot guarantuee that. 

I now realize that.  So I've ripped that hook out, as it's only used to
load a binary driver, which is not allowed.

That's the change I'm going to make.

If you want to send me a patch to tell me to rip the whole driver out,
fine I will, no problems, I completly understand.

But realize that anyone can then add it back, as the work you did was
released under the GPL :)

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Simon Oosthoek]

Nemosoft Unv. wrote:

> Actually, I've got a little surprise for you. The NDA I signed with Philips 
> has already expired a year ago. Yet, I didn't just throw the decompressor 
> code on the Internet. First, there could still be legal remedies since the 
> cams are still in production to this very day. Second, that NDA was signed 
> on a basis of trust and I do not want to lose that trust. I'm looking at 
> the bigger picture here: if we (Linux developers) can show we are 
> trustworthy, we may be able to get better support from hardware 
> manufacturers now and in the future (and really, that's what the kernel is 
> for 75% about ....) I'm still in contact with Philips and who knows, maybe 
> we can get all the source opened up...

I have one of those philips cams (bought it because I saw pwc in the 
kernel source), but I found out that without pwcx is was next to 
useless. I haven't found a good alternative camera though...

The fact that the NDA has expired already doesn't surprise me, but I 
would have expected some (or a huge) effort to liberate the source with 
full permission from Philips (they probably don't care anymore and could 
use the (marginal) good publicity more that the secret).

The fact that this hasn't happened is to me a hint that Nemosoft likes 
the power of "owning" it more that the chance of liberating it. But I 
could be wrong in that... (I apologise in advance if I'm wrong!)

I'd prefer that a clear choice is made on this, as Nemosoft suggests, 
because it shouldn't be in the kernel without the full decoding algorithms.

Cheers

Simon (a user)

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Rob van Nieuwkerk]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 00:58:24 +0200
"Nemosoft Unv." <nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl> wrote:

Hi Nemosoft,

> Actually, I've got a little surprise for you. The NDA I signed with Philips 
> has already expired a year ago. Yet, I didn't just throw the decompressor 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> code on the Internet. First, there could still be legal remedies since the 
> cams are still in production to this very day. Second, that NDA was signed 
> on a basis of trust and I do not want to lose that trust. I'm looking at 
> the bigger picture here: if we (Linux developers) can show we are 
> trustworthy, we may be able to get better support from hardware 
> manufacturers now and in the future (and really, that's what the kernel is 
> for 75% about ....) I'm still in contact with Philips and who knows, maybe 
> we can get all the source opened up...

Apparently Philips clearly indicated that disclosure would be fine with
them on this date (one year ago !!!!).  If they felt otherwise they
would have chosen a different date !

You don't mention any request or presure from Philips to not disclose.
So I assume that the only reason for you not to release the source is
some personal agenda.

The Philips cams are very good.  But for many real-life applications
they are useless without the binary-only decompressor module under Linux.

There are some severe bugs in either your Philips webcam driver, the
USB stack or the combination of both, resulting in a "dead" camera
within a second of use in some situations.  This can only be fixed by
a power cycle  (reported to you several times btw).

Not having the complete source available makes it unlikely that these
problems will be solved (nothing improved wrt this the last years).

I use 1000 Philips webcams in a product.  We are evaluating camera's for
a 2nd generation product of which several thousands more may be built.
Having the source for the driver available would certainly improve
chances that I'll use the Philips cams again.

Maybe Philips isn't impressed by thousands directly because they think
in hundreds of thousands.  But OTOH it may be an indication to them that
there is serious interest for a complete opensource Linux driver for
their nice webcam.

If you *do* notice some unhappy feelings within Philips about opensourcing
the decompressor, let me know: maybe it helps if I talk to them.

Please consider opening the source !

	greetings,
	Rob van Nieuwkerk

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Rob van Nieuwkerk]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 02:55:45 +0200
Rob van Nieuwkerk <robn@berrymount.nl> wrote:

> There are some severe bugs in either your Philips webcam driver, the
> USB stack or the combination of both, resulting in a "dead" camera
> within a second of use in some situations.  This can only be fixed by
> a power cycle  (reported to you several times btw).
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I mean "reboot" !

	greetings,
	Rob van Nieuwkerk

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[syrius.ml]

Hi there,

I'm very sad to read about that story...
I don't know all of the background, I first read
http://www.smcc.demon.nl/webcam/ then went to lkml to read a bit more
about it.
I just don't understand why Nemosoft did remove all his work (sources,
doc, and stuff). I don't like to be taken hostage !
btw nemosoft, atm what's philips' position about that ended nda and
about opening their source ? (has anyone asked philips already ?)

anyway, i've just applied pwcx-9.0-beta-2 on top of 2.6.9-rc1-bk1 and
it's working.
but I'm looking for the lastest pwc-9.0.2.tar.gz and pwcx-9.0.tar.gz,
could someone tell me where to find them (or send them to me) please.

TIA.

-- 

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[city_hunter]

Indeed, it's a real shame.
Everybody should never forget, as history tells, that extremist positions
quickly lead to destruction.
I hope that open source movement will never become fundamentalism.

Nemosoft, I can't but say thank you for your great driver.
When I bought a new webcam, I chose a philips one just because there was
your driver, and I can esaily guess other people did the same.
So indeed philips too got a reward for trusting Nemosoft.
I don't know if philips will ever release the entire source, there are
simply other implications for this; industrial secrets that, if source was
released, could be used from some other rival company.

Nemosoft, just a couple of advices from a wise guy :) (just joking, ok?)
You should really consider about writing pwc/pwcx as add-on module, I
don't think that would be a degradation. After all, there are some
wonderful drivers that are written this way (eagle-usb, linux-wlan-ng,
etc.etc.).
You could also keep the un-hooked version in the kernel and write patches
that could be applied to the kernel to get the full-featured version.

I know that both choices would bring you some more work;
but you could rightfully request a small one-time fee/contribution for the
extra work. I, for once, would be willing to pay for it.

Regards,
Giacomo Lozito

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 city_hunter@azzurra.org wrote:

>
> Indeed, it's a real shame.
> Everybody should never forget, as history tells, that extremist positions
> quickly lead to destruction.
> I hope that open source movement will never become fundamentalism.
>

Exactly.

C'mon guys, put back the driver and hooks, and let the users decide. This 
is not only about you, but about thousands of people using this driver, 
whether they know it or not.

I've bought and returned 3 webcams from logitech and creative last week 
because I couldn't get them to work in Linux. Aided by the philips webcam 
driver website, I ordered a philips webcam. Today my cam arrived, and all 
I can find is that the drivers have been removed - making webcam support 
in Linux pretty much zero (at least the ones I can find here). Completely 
ridiculous.

You know, I promised my girlfriend she could talk to her family 2000km 
away in Finland. She's waiting right here next to me, and I dare you to 
explain this idiotic zealotry to her. Or any normal person, for that 
matter. And how happy are the people at Philips going to be after their 
support to find out it was all for nothing? Not good. Not good at all. And 
we really need some support in these areas.

Maybe Philips will open up their oh so secret compression algorithm if we 
all ask them nicely. I mean, how secret can that still be?...

Put it back.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> It's not that kind of decision.  The fact is that the hook is illegal,
> so I am forced to remove it.  End of story.
>

Define 'illegal'.

Philips supports the linux driver, for now in it's partial binary form. I 
bought the webcam. I also bought the drivers (for windows) that came with 
the webcam. I have every right to have my paid-for product working.

Binary code is not illegal. Undesirable, maybe. But not illegal. It's not 
even included in the kernel code. Only a hook, and it's not even a forced 
dependency.

Indirectly, you ripped me off for about 60 euro's. Ofcourse, if you want 
to pay me 60 euro's in damages for making this webcam unusable, fine... 
But which one would I buy then? Nothing I can buy here is supported in 
Linux, especially after pulling that *working* philips/logitech 3000/4000 
driver.

How exactly does this 'freedom' you aspire to improve things for users of 
(partially) binary hardware drivers? Now I am even forced to use Windows, 
which I don't have, and which is completely binary-only.

> The fact that Nemosoft wants to delete his driver from the tree is his
> own decision, take it up with him.
>

It's not his fault that Philips doesn't want to release part of their 
specifics. You just undid a big part of his work; I think you owe all 
users of this driver now at least an attempt to get Philips to release 
this driver under terms you can agree with, because this removal (whoever 
to point the finger at) screws over a lot of people.

I think we can only hope the people of Philips are the wiser ones here 
and come to the rescue with permission to use that stupid compression 
algorithm or whatever it is that is so damn secret.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 01:35:01AM +0200, Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:
> 
> >It's not that kind of decision.  The fact is that the hook is illegal,
> >so I am forced to remove it.  End of story.
> >
> 
> Define 'illegal'.

Having a hook in the kernel (in GPLed code) for the explicit purpose of
allowing a binary module is not allowed.  Go read Linus's statements
about this in the archives.

> Philips supports the linux driver, for now in it's partial binary form. I 
> bought the webcam. I also bought the drivers (for windows) that came with 
> the webcam. I have every right to have my paid-for product working.

Then talk to Phillips, or Nemosoft.  I didn't rip the driver out of the
kernel, only the hook.  Nemosoft asked that the driver be riped out, and
that's his option.

> Binary code is not illegal. Undesirable, maybe. But not illegal. It's not 
> even included in the kernel code. Only a hook, and it's not even a forced 
> dependency.

Great, then use the version I did without the hook.  That's fine with
me.

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Greg KH wrote:

> Having a hook in the kernel (in GPLed code) for the explicit purpose of
> allowing a binary module is not allowed.  Go read Linus's statements
> about this in the archives.
>

I understand that loading binary pieces in a stand-alone driver is an 
undesirable situation, but I think you take things too strict. Sometimes 
you must look at the meaning behind a rule, and not just take things as 
universal law. It is certainly not 'illegal', as Philips has clearly given 
permission and helped out on getting this driver included.

Indeed, as far as I understand, there is hope that this binary part will 
once be open sourced. However, rejecting Philips' contribution completely 
will not aid in getting their products supported, and we desperately need 
support for some of these devices. As I already told you, I tried 3 other 
webcams which failed to work, and I've ordered this camera (and received 
it today, for crying out loud) precisely because it works in Linux, just 
like many other people have.

> Then talk to Phillips, or Nemosoft.  I didn't rip the driver out of the
> kernel, only the hook.  Nemosoft asked that the driver be riped out, and
> that's his option.
>

But look where he has come from... He has gotten support from Philips, he 
has received lots of information (mostly under NDA apparently, sadly 
enough), and with some patience, he might have gotten a full opensource 
version. Ripping out code that Philips already supported, will not help in 
getting them to open up more.

>> Binary code is not illegal. Undesirable, maybe. But not illegal. It's not
>> even included in the kernel code. Only a hook, and it's not even a forced
>> dependency.
>
> Great, then use the version I did without the hook.  That's fine with
> me.
>

You don't seem to understand that your sense of righteousness is setting 
back a lot of people, and if you would stand up and tell them you'd 
contact Philips yourself, perhaps people would be more understanding, but 
now you just pulled one of the only (and major, and supported, and 
working) drivers without as much as an alternative or promise to attempt 
to rectify the problem thusly created. Have you at least tried to contact 
Philips to improve things constructively?

Yes, I do think that if you want to see the whole driver as opensource, 
you should at least have tried once to get it in a way you can agree with, 
and not just start removing things other people seem to have worked hard 
for to achieve. With which I don't mean that I think it's a good idea of 
Nemosoft to pull all code - he too should remember it's not only about 
him, but also about all people using this driver, and about Philips, who 
seem to have been quite supportive in the development process.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 08:25:16PM +0200, Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
> C'mon guys, put back the driver and hooks, and let the users decide. This 
> is not only about you, but about thousands of people using this driver, 
> whether they know it or not.
> 
> I've bought and returned 3 webcams from logitech and creative last week 
> because I couldn't get them to work in Linux. Aided by the philips webcam 
> driver website, I ordered a philips webcam. Today my cam arrived, and all 
> I can find is that the drivers have been removed - making webcam support 
> in Linux pretty much zero (at least the ones I can find here). Completely 
> ridiculous.

So you're vounteering for the new intree-maintainer?

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Miles Bader wrote:

> How about asking the companies which are churning out products with
> secret proprietary interfaces and half-assed broken windows/intel-only
> drivers to explain _themselves_ to your girlfriend?
>

Because they made a driver (or at least aided in the development by 
supplying some information) that works. Which is more than can be said of 
other webcam producing companies. Also note that a big part of their 
driver actually is opensource.

> After all, you gave them your money, and still they're screwing you.
> Pretty inexcusable if you ask me.
>

That's true, but at least with this Philips driver I was only half screwed 
for using Linux. It worked. And I refuse to tell people around me that I 
can't install a webcam because Linux doesn't support it. And I'll be 
damned if I install windows just to get a little webcam working.

I at least understand your reasoning, since I am familiar with and respect 
opensource principles, but no sane non-opensource person will say: "Oh, 
I'd really like to have a webcam, but hey, I run Linux..." I might be 
fanatical enough to deny myself any non-opensource friendly hardware, but 
this reasoning does not fly with other people around me. I might swallow 
and send an angry letter to the company, but my girlfriend would install 
Windows and get on with her life. Which is why it's so damn important that 
Linux supports at least some of these devices people can actually buy.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> If you feel like it, you can even step up and maintain it.
>

I really would, if it wouldn't be C, kernel makefile stuff_and_ driver 
specifics. My current knowledge wouldn't do the driver justice, to say it 
mildly.

Perhaps one of the maintainers of other webcam drivers could help out here.

>> Maybe Philips will open up their oh so secret compression algorithm if we
>> all ask them nicely. I mean, how secret can that still be?...
>
> Corporations can be ridiculous/bureaucratic at times. Especially large ones.
>

True, but I still think Philips was on the right track. I doubt that their 
driver being pulled will aid linux support for their products...

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> Code is under GPL. You can add it back anyday. It's less work than writing
> such a long email.

I just happen to be better at writing rants than writing drivers. :)

If the maintainer wants it pulled, I feel it would be stealing to add it 
back into the kernel without his approval. Perhaps we could rewrite the 
driver and merge it with some other webcam driver projects.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> So you're vounteering for the new intree-maintainer?
>

I don't know anything about kernel development or drivers, let alone this 
kind of video drivers, it would be a disaster. But if nobody wants to do 
it, and I get permission from the previous maintainer, I will maintain the 
code, even only to stop it from rotting.

Why remove it when it would be ok to just add the code again?

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Xavier Bestel]

Le ven 27/08/2004 à 14:47, Wouter Van Hemel a écrit :
> Perhaps we could rewrite the driver and merge it with some other
> webcam driver projects.

"we" ?

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Friday 27 August 2004 15:47, Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > Code is under GPL. You can add it back anyday. It's less work than
> > writing such a long email.
>
> I just happen to be better at writing rants than writing drivers. :)

You don't need to write anything. Just put *existing* driver back.
It's doable even if you never ever wrote 'hello world' C program.

> If the maintainer wants it pulled, I feel it would be stealing to add it
> back into the kernel without his approval. Perhaps we could rewrite the
> driver and merge it with some other webcam driver projects.

This is the problem. It is far easier to _feel_ something
than to _do_ something.
-- 
vda

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Prakash K. Cheemplavam]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Denis Vlasenko wrote:
| On Friday 27 August 2004 15:47, Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
|
|>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

|>If the maintainer wants it pulled, I feel it would be stealing to add it
|>back into the kernel without his approval. Perhaps we could rewrite the
|>driver and merge it with some other webcam driver projects.
|
|
| This is the problem. It is far easier to _feel_ something
| than to _do_ something.

Intersting, that in the legal case, people are having a bad feeling, but
in illegal case of doing reverse-engineering, drivers make it into the
kernel...

Prakash
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBLzNuxU2n/+9+t5gRAhdaAKDMhNFwLUp8fe25fjPyk9in+87aLQCeJFu1
wZulPU+6czw5QAj8kJzHoQk=
=v1k/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 868 bytes --]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> Le ven 27/08/2004 à 14:47, Wouter Van Hemel a écrit :
>> Perhaps we could rewrite the driver and merge it with some other
>> webcam driver projects.
>
> "we" ?
>

I think there are some other people, like regular gnomemeeting users 
judging from that mailing list, that would have some interest in forming a 
team of sorts to maintain the driver. At least, I am, for myself, if 
nobody else is interested. Perhaps some other webcam driver developers 
want to help out a bit, too. Many people use this driver. I'm also willing 
to write a simple patch script that would install the (out-of-tree) driver 
in a kernel tree without requiring too much user knowledge or 
intervention, if Nemosoft would decide to release his last code.

But let's give it a few days of rest and find out what Nemosoft thinks.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:

> This is the problem. It is far easier to _feel_ something
> than to _do_ something.
>

I have contacted Philips regarding the closed source part of the driver, 
but I'm still waiting for an answer.

I can't "steal" Nemosoft's work. I don't even have any recent version of 
this driver on my system, apart from the code in the 2.6.8 kernel, and he 
has removed any packages from his website. So as long as he refuses to 
give permission to reuse his code, we (as in the users of this driver) are 
pretty much screwed.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Paulo Marques]

Wouter Van Hemel wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> 
>> If you feel like it, you can even step up and maintain it.
>>
> 
> I really would, if it wouldn't be C, kernel makefile stuff_and_ driver 
> specifics. My current knowledge wouldn't do the driver justice, to say 
> it mildly.
> 
> Perhaps one of the maintainers of other webcam drivers could help out here.
> 
>>> Maybe Philips will open up their oh so secret compression algorithm 
>>> if we
>>> all ask them nicely. I mean, how secret can that still be?...
>>
>>
>> Corporations can be ridiculous/bureaucratic at times. Especially large 
>> ones.
>>
> 
> True, but I still think Philips was on the right track. I doubt that 
> their driver being pulled will aid linux support for their products...

I was really trying to restrain myself from entering this thread, but I 
can't help it anymore...

What do Phillips gain from making their compression code secret? (If it 
is really secret... I probably can reverse engineer it legally for the 
purpose of interoperability)

They are basically saying: "Yes the quality of our webcam is as bad as 
the competition, with the same low-quality cmos sensors, plastic lenses, 
high noise analog conditioning, etc. *but* we are so much better than 
our competitors because we have a secret compression algorithm that we 
don't want them to know because they can never figure out how to do a 
compression algorithm on their own..."

No, Phillips was *not* on the right track.

Hardware products should gain with _hardware_ merits. If the Phillips 
camera has a better lens, that allows more light in under ambient light, 
or some such, it is better than the competition.

The right track would be to provide all the hardware info so that a real 
open source driver could be written. (or even better, provide the open 
source driver themselves)

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.

I for one, would really like to see Phillips allow Nemosoft to build a 
really open source driver, and not let all the work go to waste...

-- 
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Prakash K. Cheemplavam wrote:

> Intersting, that in the legal case, people are having a bad feeling, but
> in illegal case of doing reverse-engineering, drivers make it into the
> kernel...
>

It's not a matter of legal/illegal, like Linus pointed out; it's a matter 
of respecting Nemosoft's work and not stabbing him in the back.

Also note that this driver had some Philips support in the form of 
information - sadly enough, partly under NDA.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Wouter Van Hemel]

Some text cut.

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Paulo Marques wrote:

> No, Phillips was *not* on the right track.
>

Yes, they were. Because they have helped to create a working driver, which 
is more than can be said about the other cam brands I tried last week but 
had to return.

And also because the NDA has expired, and Philips might be willing to open 
up more now.

> Hardware products should gain with _hardware_ merits. If the Phillips camera 
> has a better lens, that allows more light in under ambient light, or some 
> such, it is better than the competition.
>

You talk to the wrong person. I completely agree, and used pretty much 
these exact words a while ago. Companies should want to make the best 
products, and this whole NDA/patent/driver game is just holding back the 
whole industry's advance and it degrades the very products they claim to 
be so proud of. How can anyone make a good product, and not want see it 
work?

Too many lawyers, too little engineers.

> The right track would be to provide all the hardware info so that a real open 
> source driver could be written. (or even better, provide the open source 
> driver themselves)
>

Ofcourse.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Thomas Winischhofer]

 > On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Prakash K. Cheemplavam wrote:
 >
 >>Intersting, that in the legal case, people are having a bad feeling, 
 >>but
 >>in illegal case of doing reverse-engineering, drivers make it into the
 >>kernel...
 >
 >
 >It's not a matter of legal/illegal, like Linus pointed out; it's a 
 >matter of respecting Nemosoft's work and not stabbing him in the back.


OK and if the authors of, say, SMP support say "back it out", Linux ends 
up without SMP support. Cool.

GPL is GPL. Period.

I think it's enough courtesy to say "Thank you".


-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net	       *** http://www.winischhofer.net
twini AT xfree86 DOT org

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

 >
 > Indeed, it's a real shame.
 > Everybody should never forget, as history tells, that extremist positions
 > quickly lead to destruction.
 > I hope that open source movement will never become fundamentalism.
 >

My name is Kenneth Lavrsen. I maintain the open source project Motion.
Probably half of the users of Motion - and there are 1000s of them will 
soon realise that next time they download a Kernel their camera will no 
longer work.

I wonder if the people that decided to take out the pwc driver from the 
Kernel considered anyone else than themselves?

When Greg decided to remove the hook that enabled the use of pwcx HE 
decided to remove the driver. In practical the pwc driver is worthless 
without pwc. Completely worthless. The tiny picture size supported without 
pwcx is not worth anything. pwc goes hand in hand with pwcx. This is a 
fact. When you decide to remove the possibility to use pwcx you cripple pwc 
so that it is useless.
Greg decided that for fanatic and extremist reasons the 10000s - maybe 
100000s - of people that have invested in a Webcamera like a Logitech or 
Philips can throw away their camera if they want to keep their Linux 
systems up to date in future.
I personally have 8 such cameras worth a fortune in working action and as a 
Linux user I am so disappointed and angry with the way that the maintainers 
(or is it in reality a single individual with too much power?) are 
threating me and the many other Linux users.

And what about Nemosoft. Ideally it is pretty wrong of him to pull off the 
driver from his site. That makes things even worse.
And his threads and ultimatum was not very nice either.But when you go back 
and search for the mailing that has taken place between a few kernel 
maintainers (lately Greg) it is easy to understand why Nemosoft is angry 
and feel hurt and badly treated.
It is easy to see that the whole thing turned into a personal conflict 
between Nemosoft and Greg.
And the way I read it - Nemosoft has been treated in an unfair and arrogant 
way. Nemosoft is not a machine. He is a human and react as a human after 
having been stepped on for a long time. It seems that a few fundamentalists 
have picked on Nemosoft in their private war against anything closed 
sourced. For a single individual working on a driver for no personal gain - 
for no pay - - this is more than you can expect anyone to accept.
There has been problems with the driver in connection with kernel 2.6. Some 
were real problems where a proper member of an open source community should 
help and assist in finding the solution instead of just arrogantly marking 
code bad.

And now the latest step of modifying the code so that it is useless like 
removing the hook for pwcx. I have been using pwc/pwcx for years now and 
the driver has been working well. Better than so many other USB based 
devices I have tried and rejected.
The binary pwcx module has been accepted for years. And now fanatism has 
taken over and suddenly the pwcx module is no longer pure. And it does not 
seem like Greg spent even one second thinking about the 10000s of people 
that have invested in the quite expensive (but much better than anything 
else) Logitech and Philips cameras - knowing that it was supported by 
Linux. He just destroyed the driver without a wink.
Did he think: "To hell with all the Linux users with a USB camera - I don't 
care about other people - I care only about my own principles"?

Kernel developers sits with the power to reject incoming patches. Such 
priviledge should be handled with respect. Not only to the individual 
contributors - but also to the millions of Linux users that depends on 
their behavour. What I have seen is in my eyes abuse of this power.
I would never remove a feature from Motion without a proper debate with my 
users. Being a maintainer of an OSS project is a priviledge - not a right.

I sincerely hope that Nemosoft will return and that he will be better 
received when he does.

And to all those kernel developers on this list. Remember that there are 
millions of Linux users now. And if you start removing support of people 
already purchased hardware for whatever religious reason - you will 
eventually kill Linux - because then you force people back to Windows.

Right now I have a hard time finding the motivation to continue spending 
10-20 hours per week maintaining the Motion project because of this. I am 
really angry and disappointed. This is not what I had expected from a 
community that that has been so great.

Kenneth


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

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Lee Revell]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:13, Prakash K. Cheemplavam wrote:
> |>On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> 
> |>If the maintainer wants it pulled, I feel it would be stealing to add it
> |>back into the kernel without his approval. Perhaps we could rewrite the
> |>driver and merge it with some other webcam driver projects.
> |
> |
> | This is the problem. It is far easier to _feel_ something
> | than to _do_ something.
> 
> Intersting, that in the legal case, people are having a bad feeling, but
> in illegal case of doing reverse-engineering, drivers make it into the
> kernel...
> 

Reverse engineering for interoperability purposes is legal even in the
USA.

Lee

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[David McBride]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 393 bytes --]

> [**] To the nitwit on /. who once said "Well, you brought that all
> onto yourself when you signed that NDA", I can only say: "Go suck a 
> lemon", to quote Maj. Carter. (SG-1)

Cool, I think that was me:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=88440&cid=7659780

Mmm, SG-1.

Cheers,

David
-- 
David McBride <dwm99@doc.ic.ac.uk>
Department of Computing, Imperial College, London

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 06:26:14PM +0200, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> When Greg decided to remove the hook that enabled the use of pwcx HE 
> decided to remove the driver. In practical the pwc driver is worthless 
> without pwc. Completely worthless. The tiny picture size supported without 

Then the kerneltree is indeed the wrong place for it.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 06:26:14PM +0200, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> 
> When Greg decided to remove the hook that enabled the use of pwcx HE 
> decided to remove the driver.

Not true, see my summary of the issues in another post on this list.

You relied on a binary, closed source driver, and so you relied on the
whims of the owner of such a driver.  It's a tough lesson to learn, I
realize, sorry :(

greg k-h

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Xavier Bestel]

Le ven 27/08/2004 à 18:26, Kenneth Lavrsen a écrit :

> My name is Kenneth Lavrsen. I maintain the open source project Motion.
> Probably half of the users of Motion - and there are 1000s of them will 
> soon realise that next time they download a Kernel their camera will no 
> longer work.
[...]
> I personally have 8 such cameras worth a fortune in working action and as a 
> Linux user I am so disappointed and angry with the way that the maintainers 
> (or is it in reality a single individual with too much power?) are 
> threating me and the many other Linux users.

If you value a working binary driver more than anything else, have you
considered switching over to a proprietary OS including said driver ?

Bitching won't get you very far, obviously.

	Xav

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Friday 27 August 2004 19:26, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> And now the latest step of modifying the code so that it is useless like
> removing the hook for pwcx. I have been using pwc/pwcx for years now and
> the driver has been working well. Better than so many other USB based
> devices I have tried and rejected.
> The binary pwcx module has been accepted for years. And now fanatism has
> taken over and suddenly the pwcx module is no longer pure. And it does not
> seem like Greg spent even one second thinking about the 10000s of people
> that have invested in the quite expensive (but much better than anything
> else) Logitech and Philips cameras - knowing that it was supported by
> Linux. He just destroyed the driver without a wink.
> Did he think: "To hell with all the Linux users with a USB camera - I don't
> care about other people - I care only about my own principles"?
>
> Kernel developers sits with the power to reject incoming patches. Such
> priviledge should be handled with respect. Not only to the individual
> contributors - but also to the millions of Linux users that depends on
> their behavour. What I have seen is in my eyes abuse of this power.
> I would never remove a feature from Motion without a proper debate with my
> users. Being a maintainer of an OSS project is a priviledge - not a right.

Nobody and nothing prevents you from patching that druver back in.
You dont like the fact that Linus' tree does not contain it anymore.
Well. It's *Linus'* tree.

You are completely free to either maintain out-of-tree patch or
to fork a tree.

This is the freedom given to you by GPL.
--
vda

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 19:34 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le ven 27/08/2004 à 18:26, Kenneth Lavrsen a écrit :
> 
> > My name is Kenneth Lavrsen. I maintain the open source project Motion.
> > Probably half of the users of Motion - and there are 1000s of them will 
> > soon realise that next time they download a Kernel their camera will no 
> > longer work.

> Bitching won't get you very far, obviously.

Well, it might. If there are really thousands of people out there who
will be purchasing non-Philips webcams from now on, it may be worth
making sure Philips are aware of that.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Vojtech Pavlik]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 07:09:23PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

> On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 19:34 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> > > My name is Kenneth Lavrsen. I maintain the open source project Motion.
> > > Probably half of the users of Motion - and there are 1000s of them will 
> > > soon realise that next time they download a Kernel their camera will no 
> > > longer work.
> 
> > Bitching won't get you very far, obviously.
> 
> Well, it might. If there are really thousands of people out there who
> will be purchasing non-Philips webcams from now on, it may be worth
> making sure Philips are aware of that.
 
It doesn't seem to be Philips's fault at the moment, I've read somewhere
(probably a list archive linked from slashdot) that Nemosoft's NDA has
ended a year ago and that he was now free to release the source to the
binary only part ... that'd of course fix the whole problem.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs, SuSE CR

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:07:04 +0200
Thomas Winischhofer <thomas@winischhofer.net> wrote:

> OK and if the authors of, say, SMP support say "back it out", Linux ends 
> up without SMP support. Cool.

If you could get each and every author of SMP support to agree,
sure.  But good luck getting that is quite a large group of
folks and since Linus is one of those authors.

And last I checked, no binary-only module hooks were added to
the SMP support recently, so nothing for them to get upset
about. :-)

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[David Woodhouse]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 20:35 +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> It doesn't seem to be Philips's fault at the moment, I've read somewhere
> (probably a list archive linked from slashdot) that Nemosoft's NDA has
> ended a year ago and that he was now free to release the source to the
> binary only part ... that'd of course fix the whole problem.

Good. Then I'm sure I'll receive the documents I requested in my email
to Philips.

-- 
dwmw2

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 22:47 2004-08-27, David Woodhouse wrote:
>On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 20:35 +0200, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > It doesn't seem to be Philips's fault at the moment, I've read somewhere
> > (probably a list archive linked from slashdot) that Nemosoft's NDA has
> > ended a year ago and that he was now free to release the source to the
> > binary only part ... that'd of course fix the whole problem.
>
>Good. Then I'm sure I'll receive the documents I requested in my email
>to Philips.

I have Logitech 4000s, Philips 740s and Logitech Sphere cameras running 24/7.
I always run latest stock kernel.
If anyone takes over the driver - I volunteer as a tester.

I do not have enough skills in C to write a kernel module but I can patch a 
kernel and test the cameras under real conditions - night and day including 
rotating the Sphere.

That is what I can offer as being part of a solution. I can also maintain a 
Sourceforge site if needed. But my 1.5 years of C experience (I am a 
hardware electrical engineer by profession) is not enough to maintain the 
code for a kernel module.

Kenneth


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

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Rob van Nieuwkerk]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:44:32 +0200 (CEST)
Wouter Van Hemel <wouter-kernel@fort-knox.rave.org> wrote:

Hi all,

> Also note that this driver had some Philips support in the form of 
> information - sadly enough, partly under NDA.

Just a tiny little detail that might be interesting to anyone
forming an opinion on all the pwc/linux stuff:

	-----------------------------------------------------------
	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.

	greetings,
	Rob van Nieuwkerk

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Saturday 28 August 2004 02:18, Rob van Nieuwkerk wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:44:32 +0200 (CEST)
> Wouter Van Hemel <wouter-kernel@fort-knox.rave.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> > Also note that this driver had some Philips support in the form of
> > information - sadly enough, partly under NDA.
>
> Just a tiny little detail that might be interesting to anyone
> forming an opinion on all the pwc/linux stuff:
>
> 	-----------------------------------------------------------
> 	The author of the pwc driver has publicly stated that this
> 	NDA has expired more than 1 year ago !!!
> 	-----------------------------------------------------------

"NDA expired" == "information is not a secret anymore" ?
I'm not sure, IANAL...
--
vda

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[James Courtier-Dutton]

Denis Vlasenko wrote:
>>
>>	-----------------------------------------------------------
>>	The author of the pwc driver has publicly stated that this
>>	NDA has expired more than 1 year ago !!!
>>	-----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> "NDA expired" == "information is not a secret anymore" ?
> I'm not sure, IANAL...
> --
> vda
> 

That all depends on the terms of the NDA.
To me, if an NDA expires, it can mean 2 things:
1) All information covered by the NDA has to be returned, and any 
information that cannot be returned, (I.E. Remembered in someone's 
brain.) must be kept secret forever, or until the information is made 
public by someone else.
2) The information covered in the NDA is no longer secret, and can be 
discosed to the public.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Craig Milo Rogers]

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

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Thomas Winischhofer]

David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:07:04 +0200
> Thomas Winischhofer <thomas@winischhofer.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>OK and if the authors of, say, SMP support say "back it out", Linux ends 
>>up without SMP support. Cool.
> 
> 
> If you could get each and every author of SMP support to agree,
> sure.  But good luck getting that is quite a large group of
> folks and since Linus is one of those authors.
> 
> And last I checked, no binary-only module hooks were added to
> the SMP support recently, so nothing for them to get upset
> about. :-)

For crying out loud - that was an example. Forget the hook and forget 
the binary part of the pwc driver.

s/SMP support/RTL8139 driver/g

Get the point?

A license is a license. We can't just obey a single driver's author's 
daily mood. (And for those who don't know: IAAL. Fact.)

I understand that Nemosoft got mad... what GKH did was a little like 
calling you an a**hole with a smile on your face. No offense towards 
Greg, he does a brillant job. Nemosoft will calm down (if his pride 
permits and we don't make him look like he's losing his face - so shut up).

Don't behave like children, please.

You have no idea how often I god mad over a maintainer's opinion. No 
names now. Did I ever revoke the sisfb or my XFree86/X.org driver license?

Short version: I just think Greg and Linus are too nice in this very 
case. Keeping the open source part of pwc in the kernel is - based on 
the fact that the driver has been committed under the GPL - a matter 
that shouldn't be subject to discussions at all, of that kind and 
especially that wording. Hook or no hook. Once again, forget the hook 
and forget the binary part.

If we can agree on the driver without the hook, fine.

(Let the flamewar begin: The binary pwcx is 0x3000 bytes of asm code. No 
FPU stuff, just data tables. The 3 algos in question are pretty 
primitive. Ridiculous. If there is anybody who really wants it, we'll 
have an open souce C version within a week. People now thinking that I 
ignore the SCO case please write to me privately. I am ready to explain 
the difference between patent and copyright law and the world's general 
legal opinion on reverse-engineering. And even it's the 1013481791873th 
time. But don't be surprised if you get a form letter.)

Suggestion to Nemosoft (I hope your mail address still works): What 
about the following model:

1) We have an open source driver (without decompression) in the mainline 
kernel (which you maintain).

2) You provide a binary-only module which entirely replaces the mainline 
module? This way you don't need the hook. Just put everything in a 
single module that, by a patch and a binary, replaces the entire 
mainline version.

Extra maintainance effort: Zero.

Besides: If your NDA really expired a year ago, what's the point? 
(Please send me the NDA privately. I can give you a reliable legal opinion.)

Kids, please. How old are you? Please keep our common goal in mind.

Cheers.

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net          http://www.winischhofer.net/
twini AT xfree86 DOT org

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Thomas Winischhofer]

 > On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 09:13, Prakash K. Cheemplavam wrote:
 > > >On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
 >
 > > > If the maintainer wants it pulled, I feel it would be stealing to
 > > > add it back into the kernel without his approval. Perhaps we could
 > > > rewrite the driver and merge it with some other webcam driver
 > > > projects.
 > >
 > >
 > > This is the problem. It is far easier to _feel_ something
 > > than to _do_ something.
 > >
 > > Intersting, that in the legal case, people are having a bad feeling,
 > > but in illegal case of doing reverse-engineering, drivers make it
 > > into the kernel...
 >
 >
 >Reverse engineering for interoperability purposes is legal even in the
 >USA.

Thank you for pointing that out. Really. I mean it.

And nothing else it is.

Happy hacking.

IDA anyone? (objdump does nicely, too. I looked at the disassembler 
output for about one hour today and my conclusion is that it's a pretty 
simple job. Knowing the stack concept and the "mov", "call", "lea", 
"add", "sub", "xor", "sar" and "sh[l|r]" instructions is enough.)

I would do it if I just had the time.

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net          http://www.winischhofer.net/
twini AT xfree86 DOT org

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Arjan van de Ven]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 470 bytes --]


> A license is a license. We can't just obey a single driver's author's 
> daily mood. (And for those who don't know: IAAL. Fact.)

Since you are a lawyer you know what "moral rights" are. And since you
know what those are, I assume you did the same research about moral
rights in the Netherlands (the country the PWC work was created) as I
did and noticed that this issue isn't as black and white as you claim in
your simplification I quoted above... 
 



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Thomas Winischhofer]

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>A license is a license. We can't just obey a single driver's author's 
>>daily mood. (And for those who don't know: IAAL. Fact.)
> 
> 
> Since you are a lawyer you know what "moral rights" are. And since you
> know what those are, I assume you did the same research about moral
> rights in the Netherlands (the country the PWC work was created) as I
> did and noticed that this issue isn't as black and white as you claim in
> your simplification I quoted above... 

See, I know very well what "moral rights" are. But I am having a hard 
time seeing your point here.

Stating that things aren't just black or white gains us nothing in this 
discussion. This is like saying "you might be right, but you might also 
be wrong".

But the fact that this is a response to my previous statement, I take it 
you don't share my opinion.

Well, here is how I see things:

The GPL is the legal AND "moral" "glue" of the Linux kernel. It is the 
basis of our cooperation, and it defines our relation to the user.

A license is a contract. A contract is a *mutual* agreement on rights 
and obligations.

I am pretty sure, even the Netherlands rate "pacta sunt servanda" (as a 
"moral" law since at least stone age as well as a written law since the 
Roman empire) above obeying a child's immediate overreaction to a more 
or less painless slap on his rear. Even on a morality scale since "law" 
in any regard in the end is the result from a common "moral" of a society.

I confess, I did not study dutch law. Neither did I study nigerian, 
indonesian, or mexcian law in the very regard. But I know at least that 
dutch law is based on a mixture of old german and roman law (if Hugo 
Grotius wasn't entirely wrong). And both of these, I did study, and 
assume that the principles still apply.

If things are handled differently in the Netherlands, please educate me. 
Honestly, I am willing to learn.

Again, no personal offence intended. Any emphasis for the sake of clearity.

Thomas

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net          http://www.winischhofer.net/
twini AT xfree86 DOT org

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Brian Beattie]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 13:34, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Le ven 27/08/2004 à 18:26, Kenneth Lavrsen a écrit :
> 
> > My name is Kenneth Lavrsen. I maintain the open source project Motion.
> > Probably half of the users of Motion - and there are 1000s of them will 
> > soon realise that next time they download a Kernel their camera will no 
> > longer work.
> [...]
> > I personally have 8 such cameras worth a fortune in working action and as a 
> > Linux user I am so disappointed and angry with the way that the maintainers 
> > (or is it in reality a single individual with too much power?) are 
> > threating me and the many other Linux users.
> 
> If you value a working binary driver more than anything else, have you
> considered switching over to a proprietary OS including said driver ?
> 

One can also point out, that his current kernel will continue to work
and support those cameras.

> Bitching won't get you very far, obviously.
> 
> 	Xav
> 
> -
> 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/
-- 
Brian Beattie   LFS12947 | "Honor isn't about making the right choices.
beattie@beattie-home.net | It's about dealing with the consequences."
www.beattie-home.net     | -- Midori Koto

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Thomas Winischhofer]

(Reply to Arjan's mail further below)

To avoid misunderstandings:

Thomas Winischhofer wrote:
> See, I know very well what "moral rights" are. But I am having a hard
>  time seeing your point here.

"Moral rights" = copyright law term here.

[...]

> The GPL is the legal AND "moral" "glue" of the Linux kernel. It is 
> the basis of our cooperation, and it defines our relation to the 
> user.

"Moral" meaning "morality" here, not to be mixed up with the copyright
law term of "moral rights".

[...]

> I am pretty sure, even the Netherlands rate "pacta sunt servanda" (as
>  a "moral" law since at least stone age as well as a written law
> since the Roman empire) above obeying a child's immediate
> overreaction to a more or less painless slap on his rear. Even on a
> morality scale since "law" in any regard in the end is the result
> from a common "moral" of a society.

Again, read "morality" or "morals".

Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Ok then you know that
> 
> 1) there are moral rights you can't sign away no matter what
> contracts etc there are 

Yes.


 > 2) the amount of moral rights changes per country

Yes.


 > 3) berne convention roughly says "respect the copyright law
> from country f author" which is why dutch moral rights are relevant
> since the author lives in .nl


Yes. This is actually an important point for this discussion: Other 
countries' copyright laws DO NOT MATTER here. (Hence no need to broaden 
this discussion beyond dutch copyright law.)


>> A license is a contract. A contract is a *mutual* agreement on 
>> rights and obligations.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the "license is a contract" thing is entirely valid in
 > europe.
> License and contract are separte items; a contract can give you a 
> license, but it's not clear that a license also is a contract. 
> (because in europe, a contract without BOTH parties agreeing to
 > eachother is not a real contract, and EULA's and such kinda are deep
 > into the gray area of that). But it's besides the point mostly.


Granted. The details of contract law, with respect to declaration of 
intention and declaration of acceptance, are somewhat a grey zone.

But if am not very mistaken, *all* juridical systems in Europe see a 
license as a contract. For the legally uneducated, this seems somewhat 
odd for the case of the GPL (since there is no real return) but "looks" 
entirely ok for license agreements where the license is granted in 
return for money.

But even donations are contracts and not unilateral transactions. The 
donor cannot claim the donation back (without very limited reasons that 
are not relevant here). Nothing else applies to a license without return.

The GPL itself, in clause 5, requires "acceptance". That is also a clear 
indication of its contractual nature.

And now for the moral rights (now: copyright law term):


> Ok so in .nl the moral rights an author has are
> 
> 1) The right to be visible as author in/with/at publications of the 
>    work 

Not an issue here. (If it were, it would have been previously as well.)


 > 2a) The right to object to publication when it is done such that it
 >     appears that someone else is the author


Not an issue here. (If it were, it would have been previously as well.)


 > 2b) The right to object to publication of the work under a different
 >     name of the work


Not an issue here. The name is "pwc" or "pwcx". I am not aware of any 
intentions of changing this.


 > 3) The right to object to any other modification in/to the work,
 >    unless the modification is of such nature that it is unreasonable
 >    to object to


See below


> 4) The right to object to mutilation/damage of the work when it hurts
 >    the good name or dignity of the author


Not an issue here.


These rights are the usual moral rights (now: copyright term) of most 
copyright laws I have come across yet.


> 3) is the key one here but even 2) is somewhat. If the author wants 
> to be rude and makes claim based on these, 

... and this claim is validated by a court ...

 > nobody can distribute the
> work under the GPL anymore since those requirements would then be a 
> direct conflict with that license.

Granted. However, I don't see either 2) or 3) as a problem here.

2): As said, as long as the name isn't changed, there is no basis for a 
claim. And for 2a): If this has not been valid for the last 4 years, why 
should it be in case we keep the driver in the kernel now? The GPL 
states that copyright notices (and this is nothing else than a pointer 
to the author) are to be left intact. If the GPL is obeyed (and that is 
assumed, of course), this moral right isn't touched either.

For 3): The limit for any claim at court is chicanery, even if the claim 
by the letter of the law is valid. This is also expressed by 
"[un]reasonable" in the wording, and is a general principle of western 
juridical systems. "Chicanery" is commonly defined by "raising a claim 
where the intention to persecute or damage the defendant outweighs any 
other interests of the plaintiff."

The intention of this clause (3) is to avoid changes that compromise the 
copyright holder's creativity. But keep in mind that the "idea" or any 
algorithm is not covered by copyright law.

We are only speaking about the open source part of the driver, not the 
binary part. The binary part is outside the scope of the license of the 
open source part.

The open source part and the binary part is not "one" work. It is two. 
The one and only "work" is the open source part.

Of all changes I can think of (apart from removing the hook, see below), 
I find none whose nature would make it reasonable to object it beyond 
pure chicanery.

As for the hook, one could argue that removing the hook is such a 
change: It could compromise the work (respectively the author's 
creativity) by damaging its interoperability capabilities. I tend to 
assume that is a valid point, based entirely on the moral rights.



I will continue here later today. Time's up for now.


> Now, it's not black/white. There is a clause in the same law that 
> says that an author can chose to abandon rights 2a), 2b) and 3)
 > "insofar as modifications to
> the work are concerned" and one can argue that releasing under the 
> GPL by the original author is such abandoning. But that is not quite 
> clear.

So, in my opinion, the moral rights Nr 2) aren't even damaged by keeping 
the driver in the kernel. Basically, it is not even required to abandon 
these rights.

As regards 3), I will continue later as said.


Thomas

-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net          http://www.winischhofer.net/
twini AT xfree86 DOT org

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 17:26, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> Greg decided that for fanatic and extremist reasons the 10000s - maybe 
> 100000s - of people that have invested in a Webcamera like a Logitech or 
> Philips can throw away their camera if they want to keep their Linux 
> systems up to date in future.

>From before the driver went in people have been pointing this out and
pointing out the decompress library belongs in user space. Nor did
anyone force the Nemosoft people to do this. If the base kernel version
is GPL then the version with the compressor added probably isnt GPL, but
Nemosoft wrote the whole driver so they can release a non-free whole
driver anyway

> And what about Nemosoft. Ideally it is pretty wrong of him to pull off the 
> driver from his site. That makes things even worse.

I would talk to Philips about doing it properly - in user space. I doubt
they are amused by Nemosoft pulling their stuff either. Unfortunately
its what happens when people rely on binary drivers and promises - they
get shafted.

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Alan Cox]

On Sad, 2004-08-28 at 07:55, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Since you are a lawyer you know what "moral rights" are. And since you
> know what those are, I assume you did the same research about moral
> rights in the Netherlands (the country the PWC work was created) as I
> did and noticed that this issue isn't as black and white as you claim in
> your simplification I quoted above... 

The GPL is very careful to explicitly grant rights in the text. There is
a reason for that. Pwc should stay in the kernel. 

Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Thomas Winischhofer]

Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2004-08-28 at 07:55, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>>Since you are a lawyer you know what "moral rights" are. And since you
>>know what those are, I assume you did the same research about moral
>>rights in the Netherlands (the country the PWC work was created) as I
>>did and noticed that this issue isn't as black and white as you claim in
>>your simplification I quoted above... 
> 
> 
> The GPL is very careful to explicitly grant rights in the text. There is
> a reason for that. Pwc should stay in the kernel. 

As much as I share your opinion, unfortunately, it's not that simple. 
However, I will get back to that subject as soon as I have time.

Thomas


-- 
Thomas Winischhofer
Vienna/Austria
thomas AT winischhofer DOT net          http://www.winischhofer.net/
twini AT xfree86 DOT org