Hi Al, > Practical consequences of establishing that kind of precedent (applying > a patch on the grounds of nothing but vague references to possibly > legal problems, with author explicitly refusing to explain exact reasons) > can also be non-trivial... And I'm not sure that it won't have legal > ones as well, while we are at it. You are absolutely right. For that reason, I expect that anyone who does finally make the decision to include this patch, or something like it, will have had a long discussion with a lawyer first, and will fully understand the reasons for it. Meanwhile though, there is something we can do here in public, which is to discuss the technical merits of the proposed patch. It might be that you or someone else can come up with a better technical approach. I also realise that discussing the technical merits of a patch without first establishing the exact non-technical reasons for the patch is difficult, but as Hirofumi-san has shown, it is possible. Cheers, Tridge -- 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
