lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:05    [W:0.039 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site