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.

-
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/