Date:	Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:23:38 +0200
From:	Martin Steigerwald <Martin@...htvoll.de>
To:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
	tridge@...ba.org, Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, john.lanza@...ux.com,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, corbet@....net,
	jcm@...masters.org
Subject: Re: CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES regressions

Am Donnerstag 09 Juli 2009 schrieb David Newall:
> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > If someone really wants a patch to corrupt their filesystems they
> > know where to find it.
>
> No need for pettiness. Andrew's already intimated that he's still
> working the patch, and he's a very clever lad and knows if it corrupts
> it needs more work.
>
> What I don't understand is how anybody could be satisfied with the
> status quo. We cannot leave vfat unchanged, for that will perpetuate a
> pool of victims to be sued, and Linux loses credibility every time that
> happens. Something *must* change.
>
> What is especially attractive about Andrew's position (he said this
> more eloquently than me) is that developing a solution to avoid the
> patent will impact Microsoft revenues; and that will be most
> instructive to them. That's almost sufficient reason by itself!

Pardon me, but I just don't get how adapting software to software patents 
will contribute into solving the problems they cause. Instead of 
implementing a feature like long name + short name support straight 
forwardly and simply one has to invent utterly complex, error prone and 
ugly work-arounds that actually even limit the functionality. Actually I 
do not envy Tridge for doing that job.

To me it seems that Microsoft has won if it can get Linux kernel 
developers to cripple the upstream vanilla kernel in order to avoid 
software patents. If it can get Linux kernel developers to accept a patch 
that if activated limits interoperatibility and compatibily with uncounted 
implementations of the one and only widely spread multiplatform and 
multidevice data exchange filesystem out there currently. If it can get 
Linux kernel developers to accept a patch that if activated actually risks 
more bugs and errors and thus makes the implementation less reliable than 
before.

To me it seems challenging the FAT standard by a modern replacement would 
still be the best way to go. Any hours wasted into a patch like 
CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES IMHO should be better spent with thinking about 
and implementing a replacement filesystem. Of course everyone is free to 
spend their time as they wish, but thats my oppinion.

The legal action of Microsoft against TomTom seems to create fear, 
uncertainity and doubts once again. And giving in to that IMHO would mean 
that Microsoft had already (partly) won.

Microsoft sued only TomTom regarding FAT patents upto now. Why? If they 
acted like SCO they would have gone against IBM, big Linux distributors 
like Novell and especially against several companies at once. I think this 
might be cause that Microsoft just knows that their software patent claim 
would break down if really tested. I do think that Microsoft does not want 
those FAT patents to be tested in court. Cause I think they know they 
would not stand a chance.

Accepting such a patch IMHO would help Microsoft to get away with seeding 
fear, uncertainity and doubt and not having the software patent tested and 
be made void. Actively adapting to software patents gives them a place to 
be, gives those who support them your energy.

Actually I think just ignoring them would be better. Don't give your 
energy to software patents. Ignore them and only defend were attacked 
unless the world sees how ridiculous they really are. TomTom can remove 
long name FAT from the Linux kernels they use to defend themselves if they 
can't stand the trial. This would be defending where necessary. Putting a 
patch in upstream Linux kernel would just be overreacting. Microsoft did 
not yet attack the upstream Linux kernel. And I think they won't. At least 
when they act rational. Thus IMHO there is no need to even think about 
adapting it.

And I think its not the job of the upstream kernel to protect companies 
that can not stand a patent trial or do not like to stand it. Its open-
source. They can remove parts of it.

Shall Microsoft attack IBM or other big companies. Shall Microsoft attack 
big Linux distributors. Shall they attack the upstream Linux kernel - 
however, I can't imagine an easy way to do that. Shall they ruin their 
image completely - the did quite well on that with Vista already. Don't 
help them not doing that. If Microsoft lawyers so desire let them go and 
make Microsoft a parody like lawyers of SCO managed to do.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7

Download attachment "signature.asc " of type "application/pgp-signature" (198 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists