On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 06:37:29PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 05:01:09PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >From the complete lack of technical arguments it's pretty obvious that > > this seems to be some FUD fallout from the MS vs TomTom patent lawsuite. > > > > I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how much of a threat it is. But either > > the case gets shot down by showing prior art and everything is fine, or > > we indeed are in deep trouble and should remove it completely. Given > > the Cc list on here IBM seems to have some legal opinion on it, so can > > we please see it and discuss what we want to with all cards on the > > table? > > Hello, Christoph! > > Hmmm... Both Tridge and Dave have Signed-off-by on the original patch, > and Steve has Acked-by, Mingming has Cc, and Dave is on the From list > rather than the Cc list, so I have to guess that there is a good chance > that you are talking about me. ;-) > > However, as far as I know, none of us are lawyers, and LKML is definitely > a technical rather than a legal forum, so we really do need to stick to > technical topics. I understand that this might be a bit frustrating > to you. On the other hand, I for one much prefer being in a forum > restricted to technical topics than to be in those places designed to > handle legal topics! So what's the purely technical argument for including this patch? -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- 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
