[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0904271047360.24293@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 10:49:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: Patenting kernel patches was Re: Re-implement MCE log ring buffer
as per-CPU ring buffer
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Yes, I plan on being able to post it before the 31 merge window opens. I'll
> > ping the lawyer to expedite the process.
>
> Sorry, but this is quite ridiculous. Are you serious?
Yes.
>
> Why would we want such a patented algorithm in the kernel? Normally the
> standard
> policy is to avoid patented algorithms (unless there's really no alternative
> like
> with RCU which is clearly not the case here) and I'm not aware of this policy
> haven't
> changed.
>
> And also holding up perfectly good uncontaminated patches for something
> patented seems especially wrong.
>
> I think we should move forward with a standard non patented ring
> buffer Ying was working on for this and avoid the patent mess as
> far as possible.
In the world where patents can destroy Open Source/Free Software, one of
the protections that Free Software can do is to file their own patents.
Thus fight fire with fire.
>
> -Andi (who wonders if he isn't in bizarro land now)
Welcome to bizarro land!
-- Steve
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists