pwc+pwcx is not illegal

pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Albert Cahalan]

Paulo Marques writes:

> 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.

(note: the following is not legal advice)

I think you'll find that this is not supported by
the copyright law, at least in the United States and
in any sane country.

Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your
interpretation, at least when it serves them, but
that doesn't make it the law.

What protectable elements of the kernel have been
included within the driver? I don't see any.
Like we say to SCO, where are the lines of code?
Remember, nobody is distributing a kernel with
this driver linked in. Merely loading the driver
is obviously fair use of the kernel.

(BTW, something which is required for operation
is not protectable. See the Sega v. Accolade case.
Thus, mere usage of header files won't do. You
couldn't even use the C header files on any UNIX
system if that were the case. Let's not be silly.)

Is it "non-literal copying" that concerns you?
Heh. OK. Name the jurisdiction you like, and
describe the copyright infringement test accepted
by the courts in that jurisdiction.

For example, the US 10th Circuit uses the "abstraction,
filtration, comparison" test. The US 9th Circuit uses
the "Analytic Dissection" test. There are others.
I don't know of any such test under which the
closed-source part of the driver could be considered
to be a derived work of the Linux kernel. I can hardly
imagine one that would make the driver derived without
also making Linux derived from UNIX!

So anyway... where are the lines of code?

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Linus Torvalds]

Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?

We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. It's a gray area
legally (and whatever you say won't change that), but it's absolutely not
gray from a distribution standpoint.

AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!

So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked 
for it. 

		Linus

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Paulo Marques]

Albert Cahalan wrote:
> Paulo Marques writes:
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> (note: the following is not legal advice)
> 
> I think you'll find that this is not supported by
> the copyright law, at least in the United States and
> in any sane country.
> 
> Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your
> interpretation, at least when it serves them, but
> that doesn't make it the law.

You're completely missing the point. I never said that the pwcx driver 
copies code from the kernel, and in doing so infringes copyright law.

What I'm saying is that the kernel is distributed with a license that 
allows you certain rights, and that extending the kernel functionality 
through closed source drivers is not one of those rights.

> What protectable elements of the kernel have been
> included within the driver? I don't see any.
> Like we say to SCO, where are the lines of code?
> Remember, nobody is distributing a kernel with
> this driver linked in. Merely loading the driver
> is obviously fair use of the kernel.
> 
> (BTW, something which is required for operation
> is not protectable. See the Sega v. Accolade case.
> Thus, mere usage of header files won't do. You
> couldn't even use the C header files on any UNIX
> system if that were the case. Let's not be silly.)

You're being silly, I've never said anything about header files, nor 
copied lines of code.

> Is it "non-literal copying" that concerns you?
> Heh. OK. Name the jurisdiction you like, and
> describe the copyright infringement test accepted
> by the courts in that jurisdiction.
> 
> For example, the US 10th Circuit uses the "abstraction,
> filtration, comparison" test. The US 9th Circuit uses
> the "Analytic Dissection" test. There are others.
> I don't know of any such test under which the
> closed-source part of the driver could be considered
> to be a derived work of the Linux kernel. I can hardly
> imagine one that would make the driver derived without
> also making Linux derived from UNIX!
> 
> So anyway... where are the lines of code?

It is a derived work, not a "copied" work. The point is:

 >>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.

In the case of a nvidia driver (for instance) one can argue that the 
driver was written for another well known closed source operating 
system, and was latter ported to Linux, so that we can not honestly say 
that it is a derived work.

Anyway, this is all a big gray area, with darker and lighter tones of 
gray. So you only get a definite answer in front of a judge.

This whole discussion has been beaten to death in the past. I really 
don't want to go through that again. Although I have not been directly 
involved in the past discussion, the traffic in LKML is high enough that 
it doesn't need another one of those threads...

-- 
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer.
Farmers' Almanac, 1978

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

At 21:29 2004-08-27, Linus Torvalds wrote:

>Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
>
>We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop. It's a gray area
>legally (and whatever you say won't change that), but it's absolutely not
>gray from a distribution standpoint.
>
>AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
>
>So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked
>for it.
>
>                 Linus

Try and see this from the developers perspective and then remember that he 
is a human beeing.

When I look at the postings from the past months I would say that he was 
provoked to react the way he did by the arrogant way that Greg handled it.
And from what Greg says himself that people has called him in the past (I 
will not repeat it) I would advice Greg to consider changing behavour.
Because this is what it all comes down to.
Why did Nemosoft react to hard?
When you love what you are doing and you have worked hard - not for your 
own good - but to help others - it is hard to repeatedly being treated 
badly. And there should be no need to in the open source community.

I agree that the right way to go is to get all drivers open source. And I 
think it is OK to reject new drivers.
But accepting a hook that allows a driver to use an external binary module 
for years and then suddenly remove this without making sure that it is 
replaced with something better is just plain wrong because it harms a lot 
of people.

Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry 
Linux users. I have already started contacting computer magazines and news 
papers. I just cannot accept that people can care so little for other people.

Kenneth


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

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> 
> Try and see this from the developers perspective and then remember that he 
> is a human beeing.

Hey, have you read the thread at all?

Respecting the developer is exactly why the code has been removed.

Being a developer gives you not only legal rights, but lots of other
rights. One right IT DOES NOT give you, though, is the right to add binary
hooks. That right is overridden by respecting other _developers_ rights.

Linux is all about open source. It's about making the best possible OS, 
and being as user-friendly as possible, but it's about doing so within the 
overriding goal of everybody being able to work together on the thing. 

So please respect _our_ work. 

I'm personally pretty optimistic that something can be worked out.  But it
will not happen by users whining - it will happen by users askign nemosoft
politely to avoid the kernel hooks, or by other users deciding to step up
to the plate and becoming developers.

			Linus

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[David S. Miller]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:06:29 +0200
Kenneth Lavrsen <kenneth@lavrsen.dk> wrote:

> Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry 
> Linux users.

I love sensationalism.  And you're really good at twisting the
facts my friend.  People can still get their cameras working
just fine, but it's convenient for your argument that you ignore
that fact.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Paul Jakma]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> magazines and news papers. I just cannot accept that people can 
> care so little for other people.

These people do care, they created, wrote and/or maintain the Linux 
kernel in the first place! They also are wise enough to care more the 
long-term interests of Linux than just the short-term.

> Kenneth

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul@clubi.ie	paul@jakma.org	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest
way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless.
 		-- Sinclair Lewis

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[David Ford]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]


Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:

> [...]
> Just look at the reaction everywhere. I have rarely seen so many angry 
> Linux users. I have already started contacting computer magazines and 
> news papers. I just cannot accept that people can care so little for 
> other people.
>
> Kenneth


One incredibly burning question sits before me.  Why do you spend such 
an exorbitant amount of energy wailing and hand waving over this instead 
of coming up with a solution?  You're so hellbent on making a big stink 
out of it instead of what seems to be a simple issue.  Since the driver 
already exists in multiple parts, use the existing works to come up with 
a solution.  I know Nemosoft loves his work and nobody likes getting 
pushed away.  But if the approach is wrong, find a solution that is right.

Honestly, it's pretty annoying to see people hellbent on the ruckus 
itself with little or no thought to a solution.

Make sure that gets into the editorials too.

-david


[-- Attachment #2: david+challenge-response.vcf --]
[-- Type: text/x-vcard, Size: 183 bytes --]

begin:vcard
fn:David Ford
n:Ford;David
email;internet:david@blue-labs.org
title:Industrial Geek
tel;home:Ask please
tel;cell:(203) 650-3611
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Albert Cahalan]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
> 
> We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.

Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
using hooks are illegal.

They're not nice at all, but that's a different matter.

> It's a gray area
> legally (and whatever you say won't change that),

Well, yes, but not very. If this ever goes before
a judge, betting that pwcx is ruled to be a derived
work would be a foolish way to bet.

> but it's absolutely not
> gray from a distribution standpoint.
> 
> AND IT WASN'T EVER THE REASON FOR REMOVING THE DRIVER IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> 
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked 
> for it. 

Sure. No problem, but let's not be suggesting that
this has anything to do with the law.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Greg KH]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 04:57:53PM -0400, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Can we drop this straw-man discussion now?
> > 
> > We don't do binary hooks in the kernel. Full stop.
> 
> Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
> be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
> that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
> using hooks are illegal.

No, I was trying to state that the hook itself was not allowed.  I'll
let others argue about the legality of the code using such a hook.

Sorry for any confusion about that.

greg k-h

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Linus Torvalds]

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Albert Cahalan wrote:
> 
> Sure. That has nothing to do with whether it would
> be legal or not. It had been implied (by Greg KH)
> that you thought Linux-specific proprietary drivers
> using hooks are illegal.

And they may be. As I said, your posturing doesn't matter. Using
specialized hooks might very well be ruled to be a sign of being a derived
work.

When you get a court ruling saying otherwise, come back stating it as 
fact. Until then, it's considered a gray area.

		Linus

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Albert Cahalan]

On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:34, Paulo Marques wrote:
> Albert Cahalan wrote:
> > Paulo Marques writes:

> >>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.
> > 
> > 
> > (note: the following is not legal advice)
> > 
> > I think you'll find that this is not supported by
> > the copyright law, at least in the United States and
> > in any sane country.
> > 
> > Richard Stallman and The SCO Group might like your
> > interpretation, at least when it serves them, but
> > that doesn't make it the law.
> 
> You're completely missing the point. I never said that the pwcx driver 
> copies code from the kernel, and in doing so infringes copyright law.
> 
> What I'm saying is that the kernel is distributed with a license that 
> allows you certain rights, and that extending the kernel functionality 
> through closed source drivers is not one of those rights.

True, but misleading.

The GPL is not an EULA contract that makes you give
up your right to extend kernel functionality.
The GPL doesn't grant you the right to read the code,
but nobody complains that code reading is prohibited.
Such activities are outside the scope of the GPL.

> It is a derived work, not a "copied" work. The point is:
> 
>  >>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.

Whatever. I don't see how that matters.

To be a derived work, some protectable element of
the kernel would have to be included. That might be
limited to lines of code, or it might include some
higher-level features like control flow. Either way,
the pwcx driver won't qualify as being derived.

The SCO Group has a better chance than you do. :-)
(and, if you're right, BAD things happen)

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author asked 
> for it. 

Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
don't like the new attitude .. so ner..

Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author
had a tantrum. Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space
where it should be anyway. Similarly the driver is useful without the
binary stuff.

Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;)

Alan

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Alan Cox]

On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a 
> matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you 
> need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name 
> attached to that.

It works very well for some users without that code. The raw pass
through for the compressed bitstreams solved the problems for the rest.
You appear to be seeking to hurt your userbase for your own ends. Thats
not pleasant behaviour.  I can more than understand
"take my name off it, make it clear its nothing to do with me".

> > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space 
> > where it should be anyway. 
> 
> *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome 
> for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to 
> adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). 

Video4linux has -always- specified decompressors in user space. This was
pointed out ages ago. V4L2 rationalised it even more clearly.

> *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose 
> much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.
> 
> (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)

No its for userspace. Just add it to the relevant video frameworks.

> Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the 
> driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I 
> never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its 
> purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably 
> have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the 
> kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been 
> acceptable.

Back in 2001 I was saying that this was broken and it belonged in user
space.

> of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll 
> leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, 
> etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're 
> asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have 
> been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).

There isn't a plan to have a 2.7 development tree but to do gradual
development until something major comes up. That makes the suggestion
rather more tricky - as does the legal question.

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Nemosoft Unv.]

Hello,

On Sunday 29 August 2004 16:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author
> > asked for it.
>
> Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.

No, don't! There is one very practial reason for that: the utter confusion 
it will cause when suddenly PWCX cannot be loaded anymore, because users 
will assume that since PWC is in the kernel, PWCX will work too. I really 
would not like to be at the receiving end of the support mailbox when 2.6.9 
comes out with such a crippled version of PWC.

That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a 
matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you 
need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name 
attached to that.

> If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
> don't like the new attitude .. so ner..
>
> Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author
> had a tantrum. 

I'm not having a tantrum. If it is, it has been one in the making for 3 
years.

> Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space 
> where it should be anyway. 

*sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome 
for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to 
adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). 

I mean, I still remember when the YUV->RGB conversion code was snipped from 
PWC when I supplied it for inclusing in the kernel, back in 2001. It took a 
long, long time for webcam tools to adjust their code to check for the YUV 
palette and do the conversion themselves, and _to_this_very_day_ I'm 
getting mails about programs who still don't get it right.

*IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose 
much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.

(maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)

> Similarly the driver is useful without the binary stuff.

True. But judging from the mails I have received the last couple of days,
people don't really care about the binary stuff, as long as it works. They 
want to use the cam to its full potential, so PWCX is more or less a 
necessity. However, there's has now been added an extra hurdle in getting 
it work, for reasons I find questionable, and really, 3 years too late.

Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the 
driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I 
never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its 
purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably 
have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the 
kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been 
acceptable.

Another acceptable solution would have been, if after the 'discovery' of the 
hook, Greg or anybody else had said: "Look, we really don't want this kind 
of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll 
leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, 
etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're 
asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have 
been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).

> Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;)

*lol* The code is still floating around on the Net, so nobody's stopping 
you... 

 - Nemosoft


[*] Some advice: if you really want to speed up V4L2 adoption by video 
tools, start disabling V4L1 in the kernel... 

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Norbert van Nobelen]

Hi,

A part of this discussion has to do with the expiration of the NDA covering 
pwcx. Can you disclose the NDA?
Also a person on the list tried to contact the correct person within Philips. 
Can you disclose the contact person or department which you used about 3 
years ago?

Best regards,

Norbert van Nobelen

On Sunday 29 August 2004 18:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sunday 29 August 2004 16:00, Alan Cox wrote:
> > On Gwe, 2004-08-27 at 20:29, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > So stop whining about it. The driver got removed because the author
> > > asked for it.
> >
> > Please put it back, minus the hooks so the rest of the world can use it.
>
> No, don't! There is one very practial reason for that: the utter confusion
> it will cause when suddenly PWCX cannot be loaded anymore, because users
> will assume that since PWC is in the kernel, PWCX will work too. I really
> would not like to be at the receiving end of the support mailbox when 2.6.9
> comes out with such a crippled version of PWC.
>
> That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also
> a matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when
> you need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my
> name attached to that.
>
> > If not please remove every line of code I've even written because I
> > don't like the new attitude .. so ner..
> >
> > Point made ? We can't go around throwing out drivers because the author
> > had a tantrum.
>
> I'm not having a tantrum. If it is, it has been one in the making for 3
> years.
>
> > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space
> > where it should be anyway.
>
> *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical,
> cumbersome for both users and developers, and will probably take a very
> long time to adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]).
>
> I mean, I still remember when the YUV->RGB conversion code was snipped from
> PWC when I supplied it for inclusing in the kernel, back in 2001. It took a
> long, long time for webcam tools to adjust their code to check for the YUV
> palette and do the conversion themselves, and _to_this_very_day_ I'm
> getting mails about programs who still don't get it right.
>
> *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not
> pose much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.
>
> (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)
>
> > Similarly the driver is useful without the binary stuff.
>
> True. But judging from the mails I have received the last couple of days,
> people don't really care about the binary stuff, as long as it works. They
> want to use the cam to its full potential, so PWCX is more or less a
> necessity. However, there's has now been added an extra hurdle in getting
> it work, for reasons I find questionable, and really, 3 years too late.
>
> Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the
> driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I
> never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its
> purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably
> have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the
> kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been
> acceptable.
>
> Another acceptable solution would have been, if after the 'discovery' of
> the hook, Greg or anybody else had said: "Look, we really don't want this
> kind of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react,
> we'll leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that
> (2.7-devel, etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time,
> we're asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would
> have been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).
>
> > Or do we need a -ac tree again where this time -ac is "added camera" ;)
>
> *lol* The code is still floating around on the Net, so nobody's stopping
> you...
>
>  - Nemosoft
>
>
> [*] Some advice: if you really want to speed up V4L2 adoption by video
> tools, start disabling V4L1 in the kernel...
>
> -
> 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/

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 16:42:24 +0100 Alan Cox wrote:

| On Sul, 2004-08-29 at 17:33, Nemosoft Unv. wrote:
| > That's one of the reasons I requested PWC to be removed. For me, it's also a 
| > matter of quality: what good is a half-baked driver in the kernel when you 
| > need to patch it first to get it working fully again? I don't want my name 
| > attached to that.
| 
| It works very well for some users without that code. The raw pass
| through for the compressed bitstreams solved the problems for the rest.
| You appear to be seeking to hurt your userbase for your own ends. Thats
| not pleasant behaviour.  I can more than understand
| "take my name off it, make it clear its nothing to do with me".
| 
| > > Its also trivial to move the decompressor to user space 
| > > where it should be anyway. 
| > 
| > *sigh* As I have been saying a 100 times before, it is illogical, cumbersome 
| > for both users and developers, and will probably take a very long time to 
| > adopt (notwithstanding V4L2 [*]). 
| 
| Video4linux has -always- specified decompressors in user space. This was
| pointed out ages ago. V4L2 rationalised it even more clearly.
| 
| > *IF* there was a commonly accepted video "middle-layer", this would not pose 
| > much of a problem. But there is no such thing yet.
| > 
| > (maybe that's something for a 2.7 kernel...)
| 
| No its for userspace. Just add it to the relevant video frameworks.
| 
| > Seriously, this probably would not have happened if, back in 2001, the 
| > driver was rejected on the basis of this hook (you were there, Alan...) I 
| > never made a secret of it, it has been in the driver from day 1 and its 
| > purpose was clearly spelled out. If it had been rejected, I would probably 
| > have just switched to '3rd party module' mode and maintained it outside the 
| > kernel indefinetely. I would not have liked it, but it would have been 
| > acceptable.
| 
| Back in 2001 I was saying that this was broken and it belonged in user
| space.

Yes, that's right, and it should be done by now...
We kept expecting updates in that direction.

| > of thing in the kernel. However, since we're a bit late to react, we'll 
| > leave it in the 2.4 and 2.6 series, but versions beyond that (2.7-devel, 
| > etc) will not have PWC included in this form. In the mean time, we're 
| > asking you to think of a solution". Chances are the situation would have 
| > been fully resolved before that (and I mean fully *hint*).
| 
| There isn't a plan to have a 2.7 development tree but to do gradual
| development until something major comes up. That makes the suggestion
| rather more tricky - as does the legal question.


--
~Randy

Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Brian Litzinger]

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:26:26PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> 
> >magazines and news papers. I just cannot accept that people can 
> >care so little for other people.
> 
> These people do care, they created, wrote and/or maintain the Linux 
> kernel in the first place! They also are wise enough to care more the 
> long-term interests of Linux than just the short-term.

So we have to step on a few people on the way to build our great
an glorious utopia!  Well at leat it is for their own good.

-- 
Brian Litzinger