On Oct 26, 2004, Dan Hollis <goemon@xxxxxxxxx> 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? I'm sure Red Hat wouldn't mind if you included them all in the agreement :-) -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}