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]

Message-ID: <49FF55D5.6060103@nortel.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 May 2009 14:53:41 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC:	Olivier Galibert <galibert@...ox.com>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option

Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> Because of that let us assume that IBM Corporate, Paul E. McKenney, Andrew
> Tridgell and other know what code exactly infridges that patent.  IBM
> has worked around that code in the various embedded Linux offerings they
> ship and probably urge distributors to disable it.  Why would we not
> remove that code unconditionally in that case and let other people
> infridge it?
> 
> Or that patent is believed to be invalid and faught, and there was
> absolute no reason to remove it except for companies doing as part of a
> settlement and they could do it in their privat trees.

What about the scenario where a patent is valid in certain parts of the 
world but not in others?  It seems possible that in this scenario there 
may be valid reasons to have a config option.

Chris
--
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/