[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
    > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:01:09PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > > >From the complete lack of technical arguments it's pretty obvious that
    > > this seems to be some FUD fallout from the MS vs TomTom patent lawsuite.
    > >
    > > I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how much of a threat it is. But either
    > > the case gets shot down by showing prior art and everything is fine, or
    > > we indeed are in deep trouble and should remove it completely. Given
    > > the Cc list on here IBM seems to have some legal opinion on it, so can
    > > we please see it and discuss what we want to with all cards on the
    > > table?
    > Hello, Christoph!
    > Hmmm... Both Tridge and Dave have Signed-off-by on the original patch,
    > and Steve has Acked-by, Mingming has Cc, and Dave is on the From list
    > rather than the Cc list, so I have to guess that there is a good chance
    > that you are talking about me. ;-)
    > However, as far as I know, none of us are lawyers, and LKML is definitely
    > a technical rather than a legal forum, so we really do need to stick to
    > technical topics. I understand that this might be a bit frustrating
    > to you. On the other hand, I for one much prefer being in a forum
    > restricted to technical topics than to be in those places designed to
    > handle legal topics!

    So what's the purely technical argument for including this patch?

    Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
    "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
    operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
    a retrograde step."

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-02 04:03    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean