[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Withdrawl of Open Source NDS Project/NTFS/M2FS forLinux
On Sun, 3 Sep 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:

>> (Andre Hedrick) writes:
>> >Apology to Jeff,
>> >I am sorry to here of this, but I know what you mean about microsoft.
>> >My and co-worker's code for doing full taskfile access under linux was
>> >rejected here but is being used in MicroSoft Whistler 2001. They are
>> >quick to grab the very best of Linux and adopt it for their own.
>> If you can prove this, then you could talk to FSF about M$ GPL
>> violations.
>You can not go after people for patches.
>Linux rejected the code because it does not understand nor does anyone
>have the desire to learn what it does. Since it is not in the kernel
>there is no GPL issue.

Sure it is. If you wrote that code Andre, patch or not, and you
release it as GPL code, then it is just that. Patches sent to
linux-kernel that are rejected are not just free-bait for M$ to

>Upon Microsoft's adpotion of the model they will be years ahead
>of Linux.

I somewhat doubt M$ will claim a seat like that. ;o)

>The things lost and stagnating development is that I can not do new
>features without the code. Some of the newest features in Linux like
>auto_crc_downgrade is being adopted by Intel and a future hardware IO
>access that will allow for sideways disk access will convert the software
>into hardware.
>The future of IO-MEM mapped for ATA to allow for PRD sliding or zero-copy.
>This and a bunch of other tricks are dependent of having a clean native

And why can your code not get included now? I thought the IDE
code thing was resolved now, and that the legal issues were
covered? I hope that any work you're doing that is adding new
features, is both submitted and accepted. If your patches are
refused solely because of past differences with people due to the
old IDE thread of a month or so ago, then something is definitely
wrong with the devel model here. If someone produces a useful
patch, and it gets refused based on personal grounds of someone
else, then Linux is in trouble. Lets hope that this is not the
case for sure..

Take care!

Mike A. Harris Linux advocate
Computer Consultant GNU advocate
Capslock Consulting Open Source advocate

Red Hat FAQ tip: Having trouble upgrading RPM 3.0.x to RPM 4.0.x? Upgrade
first to version 3.0.5, and then to 4.0.x. All packages are available on
Red Hat's ftp sites:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.153 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site