[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:25:05AM +1000, wrote:
    > Hi Pavel,
    > > Well if they are obvious, please get us someone who _can_ discuss them
    > > with us. Preferably a lawyer that can explain why the patch is
    > > neccessary.
    > I am trying to get that to happen, and I do realise that getting a
    > lawyer to publicly explain the situation would be really
    > worthwhile. Unfortunately lawyers are (mostly) very shy of making
    > public statements of this type, because the legal consequences of
    > making these statements can be non-trivial.

    Practical consequences of establishing that kind of precedent (applying
    a patch on the grounds of nothing but vague references to possibly
    legal problems, with author explicitly refusing to explain exact reasons)
    can also be non-trivial... And I'm not sure that it won't have legal
    ones as well, while we are at it.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-04 00:59    [W:0.021 / U:0.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site