Re: FAT patents. Do we need to revive non-US?
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 10:29:10 -0600
John Hasler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> hendrik writes:
> > Apparently there is now a patent on the FAT file system within the US,
> > anyway. Do we have to rip it out of the kernel?
> No (that patent is not new).
They can pry my FAT from my cold dead... ohhh, sorry, this isn't slashdot. ;)
> > Do we have to stop distributing the kernel until we've done so?
> No. The kernel probably infringes dozens, perhaps hundreds of patents.
> Debian's policy is to ignore patents in the absence of evidence that the
> owner is likely to enforce them on us.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that M$ intends to enforce this patent. and its not clear to me whether the patent applies to drivers or to the act of writing a FAT system. If it applies to drivers, I think that linux FAT system is a clean-room creation and would probably be okay. If it applies to the act of writing a FAT system (talking outmy FAT *ss here) then nobody can write FAT with out paying their $0.25
I'm sure the anit-monopoly guys will have something to say about this. I think its clearly designed to cut-off linux.
Don't upgrade you're kernel until its settled...
> > Is it time to revive the non-US repository so that at least the rest or
> > the world can still transfer files between Linux and Windows?
> Don't forget non-DE as well.
> John Hasler
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com