linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 08:35:27 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Cc:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, tridge@...ba.org,
	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Steve French <smfrench@...il.com>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Ogawa Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 04:05:58AM -0400, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu wrote:
> On Mon, 04 May 2009 20:34:42 PDT, "Paul E. McKenney" said:
> 
> > I am more than happy to let you search the case law on this one.
> 
> Ya know, it's that same "I'll let your lawyers rediscover the stuff that mine
> already found" issue that's making this thread a pain.

My apologies for the pain, however, Matthew said that he "never trusted
advice from IBM laywers", so there didn't seem to be any point in
consulting them.

> Case saying (C) *possibly* sufficient (ruling 'c-in-hexagon' was sufficient):
> Videotronics v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478, 481 (D. Nev. 1984)
> 
> Case saying it might not be:
> Forry v. Neundorfer, 837 F.2d 259, 266 (6th Cir., 1988)
> 
> Neundorfer says:
> 
> "Videotronics, Inc. v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478 (D.Nev.1984) held that
> a letter "C" enclosed within a hexagon met the statutory requirements, but
> suggested in dicta that the symbol "(C)" might not be sufficient because
> parentheses, unlike a hexagon or a circle, would not completely enclose the
> "C". Id. at 481. However, if a "C" in a hexagon is sufficient, an argument
> exists that a "C" in parentheses is sufficient. Defendants here had actual
> notice of copyright. The trial of this action may provide a better record on
> which to finally decide whether the symbol "(C)" is sufficiently similar to a
> "C" in a circle to serve as notice of a copyright. Plaintiff is apparently now
> using the "C" in a circle. It may therefore be entitled to rely on 405(a)(2)
> even if the earlier symbol was not sufficient."
> 
> Clear as mud, unless you have a more recent cite. :)

http://books.google.com/books?id=6je0tPcGMzYC&pg=PT822&lpg=PT822&dq=Videotronics+v.+Bend+Electronics,+586+F.Supp.+478,+481+(D.+Nev.+1984)&source=bl&ots=ccxO5np_uQ&sig=Q0wj4k5uCpMiZybAQe12JlHhh0A&hl=en&ei=Z1kASu2ZJ8eLtgehupyNBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPT822,M1

Dated 2005, cites a 1988 case in footnote 28.  Also claims that:
Copyright Office II Compendium of Copyright Office Practices lists
acceptable variants to the C in a circle, including "(c)".

But this is a USA publication.  Perhaps Matthew is thinking in terms of
some other geography.  And perhaps things have changed since 2005.

							Thanx, Paul
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/