Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] PWC driver story continues.

[PUYDT Julien <jpuydt free fr>]

Le ven, 17/09/2004 à 15:15 +1000, Craig Southeren a écrit :
> Actually, there was no problem with the non-GPL code at all. The problem
> was the the kernel maintainers decided to remove a hook function from
> the standard kernel that was needed for the PWC driver, and then refused
> to put it back in. This meant that the partially binary driver simply
> could not work with a standard kernel any more.

See below.

> I'll answer that question, if you can tell me why the kernel maintainers
> decided to remove a hook function that had been part of the kernel for
> three years.

See below.

> OSS is not "right" any more than closed source is "right". They both
> have advantages (and distinct disadvantages). Why can't both co-exist?

See below.

> And why shouldn't a driver stub be included in the kernel? What is wrong
> with this?

What's wrong is that this code in GPL code was there specifically to
load a non-GPL driver. That isn't correct with respect to the GPL, so
they decided to remove that hook. Notice that the kernel still has hooks
to load modules. But those hooks are generic hooks: they are used by GPL
drivers, and non-GPL drivers. And that is the important distinction: in
one case the kernel was doing something special for a non-GPL driver,
while in the other one, it is providing a service for anyone to use.

Notice too that non-open drivers make debugging problems much much more
difficult (hence the notion of 'tainted' kernel).

> And that is one of the prices you pay for Open Source - your
> capabilities are set by other people's agendas, and because you have no
> way of swaying their decisions you must accept whatever they choose
> regardless of whether you like it or not.

As explained above, it's still possible to insmod proprietary drivers in
the kernel, so the freedom is still there. All computers I have here use
a proprietary module for their graphic cards: no problem.

Snark