On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 08:48 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > How does > > > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-p > > > atent-portfolio/ > > > change your personal opinion? > > > > According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN > > doesn't mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft* > > contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel. That's because > > the OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS > > contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't > > count. > > > > For more details: > > > > https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/ > > > > (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.) > > Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be > observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work > from Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it? KY, if you need local help to convince anyone, I can do that ... I've been deeply involved in patent issues with open source from the community angle for a while and I'm used to talking to corporate counsels. Personally I think we could catch Microsoft in the implied licence to the FAT patent simply by putting exfat in the kernel and waiting for them to distribute it but I think it would benefit Microsoft much more from a community perspective to make an open donation of the FAT patents to Linux in much the same way they've already done for UEFI. If my analysis of the distribution situation is correct, it would be making a virtue of a necessity anyway which is always a useful business case argument. James _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
