Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:58:31 +0200 (CEST) | From | Wouter Van Hemel <> | Subject | Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches |
| |
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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |