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.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/