This is a forward of my original message which has been rejected (the
e-mail address I used was not the same than the one used for the
mailing-list subscription).
I apologize for the dual post, in case the other message is delivered to
the list too.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Re: V4L2 to-do list
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 14:20:11 +0200
From: Romain Vignes <romain@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: eProcess
To: video4linux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
References: <200108281118.f7SBIo009471@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<200108281136.AA21812@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The reason why NSC (aka National Semiconductors) has been silent on
their V4L2 project until now is that the Open Source aspect was not part
of their initial plans.
In order to get the same source code a few weeks ago, I had to spend
some non-negligible time contacting NSC, obtaining and signing a NDA,
describing my company and our projects to the NSC french representative,
signing some more licence agreements ...
Now, the source is available for the Open Source community and we should
say "Bravo !" and thank NSC for this decision. They realized that the
best way for encouraging linux developers to work on their Geode
platform was the OSS way. Great !!
But how to handle this specific V4L2 implementation ? Personally, I
think it would be a bad decision to simply ignore it. In fact, they have
added what was missing in the API for their specific needs, and now they
give back their changes to the community.
It is time for the "peer-review" process, ins't it ? After that, why not
trying to establish a kind of convergence between the official V4L2
and the NSC-specific one ?
Christopher Ross wrote:
> Curious, the site didn't ask me to register or such.
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of had *they* (Nat Semi) folded it
> back into the mix or forked a new version specifically for their machine?
> Or now are we in the position of having another, different, version? One
> that works on their machine but not on anything else, but which includes
> useful stuff it would be nice if they gave back?
>
> This is presumably a different fork from the Nokia stuff, the LinuxTV
> stuff et. al.
>
> Chris R.
>
> On Tuesday 28 August 2001 13:18, Alan Cox wrote:
>
>>>Still, it would seem churlish not to consider whether or not their
>>>work (license permitting, as I'm sure it must) was worthy of folding
>>>back into the mix, to misappropriate a culinary term. Unless, of
>>>course, Alan or Bill's already looked at what they've done and
>>>dismissed it. In which case I will defer to their far greater
>>>knowledge on such matters.
>>>
>>I looked around their site briefly and what they had was all only
>>downloadable if you registered and stuff at that point, so I've not
>>bothered. I have better things to do with my time.
>>
>>Alan
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Video4linux-list mailing list
> Video4linux-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list
>
>
--
Romain Vignes <romain@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Directeur Technique - eProcess
Tel: +33 (0)4 67 13 50 70
--
Romain Vignes <romain@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Directeur Technique - eProcess
Tel: +33 (0)4 67 13 50 70
