On Tuesday 31 March 2009 16:21:37 Xavier Bestel wrote: > I'm speaking out of my ass here, but seeing how Microsoft managed to > sneak some patents into something as trivial as FAT, I'm pretty sure MTP > is a hell of a minefield. That did occur to me too but I was somewhat hopeful that perhaps this would be mitigated by the (eventual?) adoption as a usb.org standard. The spec and an adopters' legal agreement around it is here: http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/MTP_1.0.zip I scanned the agreement and it didn't look like it was obviously evil but I'm not really qualified to make that judgement ;-) It had some promising words in it like "zero royalty" but I would be much happier if someone with legal knowhow (and preferably experience of the usb.org standards procedures) decoded it for me / us! Assuming the spec is legally "safe" to implement, I would have thought it would be generally beneficial for device manufacturers to support both "initiator" and "responder" endpoints under Linux. Cheers, Mark -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
