On 26 Oct 2004, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Oct 26, 2004, Dan Hollis <goemon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The excuses for not including ntfs have varied over the years, always > > changing. The decision not to include ntfs-readonly is an ideological > > issue and not a technical or legal one. > If you're so sure there isn't a legal issue, I'm sure you wouldn't > mind signing an agreement with Red Hat, becoming personally > responsible for any liability resulting from shipping a kernel with > the NTFS module enabled, right? are there such agreements for fat and rdp and samba, which microsoft stated they did hold patents on? -Dan