[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectThe return of PWC
    Hello Greg, Luc

    I've been out of the loop for a while, but today I was informed that PWC is
    about to return to the main Linux kernel tree, in some form. In fact, it's
    already in 2.4.12rc3.

    Unfortunately, the current implementation is not acceptable. First, there
    are still some references to the old website
    ( en e-mail address. But that's no big
    deal. What's more of a problem, though, is the decompressor code that is
    being included.

    In case you hadn't noticed, that code has been reverse compiled (I would not
    even call it "reverse engineered"), and is simply illegal. Maybe not in
    every country, but certainly in some. There are still some intellectual
    property rights being violated here, you know, and I'm surprised at the
    contempt you and Linux kernel maintainers show in this regard for a few
    lines of the law.

    Now don't get started on "it was GPL code before you left bla bla" or "you
    should not have abonded the project bla bla blah" and "this court here has
    ruled reverse engineering is allowed and so on mumble mumble".

    I abandoned the project, true. But PWC was (and is) GPL, so if somebody
    wanted to do the maintenance, that's fine because that is the intent, after
    all. Even if that person grabbed the pre-compiled binaries and started
    maintaining with that, that would have been borderline, but okay. But
    you're crossing the line here with PWCX (the decompressor). If it was
    truely reverse engineered, by studying the bitstream and trying to figure
    out the algorithms, then that would have been a remarkable feat. But how
    dare you decompile binary code, slap a GPL header on it and try to return
    it to the kernel as if everything's alright now?

    Anyway, I'll inform my contacts at Philips tomorrow. I don't know how they
    will react; maybe they'll go nuts, maybe they'll let it pass quitely; it's
    hard to tell. Either way, you're putting yourself in a precarious situation
    here. Clearly, this code was not intended to be included in the kernel
    source, it has been obtained by rather dubious means and, above all, I
    don't think the GPL was ever intended for this kind of "relabelling". I
    call it theft.

    So I seriously suggest you do not put the module back into the kernel in
    this form.


    - Nemosoft Unv.
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-02 02:33    [W:0.039 / U:43.820 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site