John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
David G. Miller wrote:
> It wouldn't surprise me if NTFS was encumbered by some sort of Micro$oft
> intellectual property claim. This would be sufficient to cause Red Hat
> to not build their kernel with it even if all it takes to make it work
> is to enable the feature in the kernel build.
Debian's as paranoid as anyone, but it ships NTFS.
Additionally, I've never heard any claims regarding HPFS, and as I came
to Linux from OS/2, I think I'd remember such. And, RH has never, to my
recollection, shipped HPFS either.
> See one of the many flame wars over MP3 or some other IP encumbered
> technology as to why RH won't include it (and risk getting sued).
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
I vaguely recall that IBM wanted to open source HPFS at one time and was
told by Microsquish that they wouldn't allow it. Funny that IBM went
one better and open sourced JFS instead.
I'm in kind of the same boat as you since I was an OS/2 user before I
switched to Linux. I think the HPFS information was from a discussion
as to why IBM couldn't open source OS/2 as a means of continuing
support. Remember, we're talking about the same Microsquish that has
attempted to patent the FAT file system. I'd be very surprised if NTFS
wasn't IP encumbered. Debian tends to be very paranoid as to technical
features and stability but they don't have the financial exposure that
Red Hat has when it comes to infringing IP.
Cheers,
Dave
--
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
-- Ambrose Bierce
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
