Re: pwc+pwcx is not illegal

[Kenneth Lavrsen]

> In the case of pwc+pwcx, pwcx (the decoder module) is completely useless
> without pwc (the driver module), and thus is obviously falling in the
> second class described above.

It was accepted for 4 years.
And then suddenly is was crippled without a replacement - because of a 
personal disagreement.
This is the issue.
Not the principle. Not the spirit of GPL which I support. I don't know why 
so many of you always turn these debates into a matter of law and rules.

The issue that I keep on raising that that none of the kernel maintainers 
will answer is.

- Do you care about the 10000s of users that you harm?
- Do you care at all about anything else than yourself and your principles?
- Could this have been handled in a better way that would lead to the 
pwc/pwcx being handled according to the new policy and so that the users 
would not be affected?

Too many of you keep on defending bad behavour hiding behind the GPL.

When a commercial company sells something and cuts support too early - the 
customers complain and stop buying more products from that supplier.
Many companies have for this reason discovered that the only way to run a 
successful business is to be driven by the "Total Customer Satisfaction" 
principle.
I am sure many of you are familiar with it from your daytime jobs.

Kenneth


--
Kenneth Lavrsen,
Glostrup, Denmark
kenneth@xxxxxxxxxx
Home Page - http://www.lavrsen.dk  


-
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/