lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]


    On Sat, 25 May 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    >
    > I'd like to take this opportunity to take a turn back towards the original
    > issue: supposing that Ingo's/Red Hat's patented extension to the dcache is
    > accepted into the kernel. Would not the GPL's patent trap provision
    > prevent Red Hat from distributing the result, unless Red Hat also provides
    > a license for the patent permitting unrestricted use *regardless of
    > commercial or noncommercial use* of the patent in the context of the GPL'd
    > code?

    Absolutely.

    Patents are bad, but I think peoples "charge the red flag" reactions to
    them are also bad.

    I think it was Alan who just suggested to Andrea that he'd ask for an
    explicit piece of paper _saying_ it was ok, instead of paniccing.

    I don't much like patents, but we're forced to live with them. I suspect
    the best thing we can do is to use them as well as we can. Which is why I
    don't personally think it's a problem that RedHat, FSMlabs etc get
    patents.

    Can those patents result in trouble? Sure as hell. But let's put it this
    way: I'm a _lot_ happier about a RedHat/FSMlabs patent that gets licensed
    to GPL users than I am about a patent by somebody who would want to screw
    with the GPL.

    Linus

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:3.922 / U:0.388 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site