[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:0.082 / U:1.524 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site