Re: kernel 2.6.8 pwc patches and counterpatches

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Friday 27 August 2004 19:26, Kenneth Lavrsen wrote:
> And now the latest step of modifying the code so that it is useless like
> removing the hook for pwcx. I have been using pwc/pwcx for years now and
> the driver has been working well. Better than so many other USB based
> devices I have tried and rejected.
> The binary pwcx module has been accepted for years. And now fanatism has
> taken over and suddenly the pwcx module is no longer pure. And it does not
> seem like Greg spent even one second thinking about the 10000s of people
> that have invested in the quite expensive (but much better than anything
> else) Logitech and Philips cameras - knowing that it was supported by
> Linux. He just destroyed the driver without a wink.
> Did he think: "To hell with all the Linux users with a USB camera - I don't
> care about other people - I care only about my own principles"?
>
> Kernel developers sits with the power to reject incoming patches. Such
> priviledge should be handled with respect. Not only to the individual
> contributors - but also to the millions of Linux users that depends on
> their behavour. What I have seen is in my eyes abuse of this power.
> I would never remove a feature from Motion without a proper debate with my
> users. Being a maintainer of an OSS project is a priviledge - not a right.

Nobody and nothing prevents you from patching that druver back in.
You dont like the fact that Linus' tree does not contain it anymore.
Well. It's *Linus'* tree.

You are completely free to either maintain out-of-tree patch or
to fork a tree.

This is the freedom given to you by GPL.
--
vda

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/