From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267526AbUH0UOj (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:14:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267514AbUH0UNk (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:13:40 -0400 Received: from pasmtp.tele.dk ([193.162.159.95]:19723 "EHLO pasmtp.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267526AbUH0UHG (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:07:06 -0400 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20040827215143.01d7b038@inet.uni2.dk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:06:29 +0200 To: Linus Torvalds , Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel mailing list From: Kenneth Lavrsen Subject: Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal Cc: pmarques@grupopie.com, greg@kroah.com, nemosoft@smcc.demon.nl, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: References: <1093634283.431.6370.camel@cube> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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