On Tuesday 26 October 2004 19:26, Dan Hollis wrote: >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 ISTR the fat patent was thrown out a couple of months back, as everyone expected it to be. rdp and samba? No knowledge other than its been a cat and mouse game with M$ trying to maintain compatibility for samba. -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.28% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.