[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A4B4D1D.8070308@panasas.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:48:45 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh@...asas.com>
To: tridge@...ba.org
CC: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
john.lanza@...ux.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Added CONFIG_VFAT_FS_DUALNAMES option
On 07/01/2009 01:50 PM, tridge@...ba.org wrote:
> Hi Pavel,
>
> We did of course consider that, and the changes to the patch to
> implement collision avoidance are relatively simple. We didn't do it
> as it would weaken the legal basis behind the patch. I'll leave it to
> John Lanza (the LF patent attorney) to expand on that if you want more
> information.
>
You completely lost me here. And I thought I did understand the patent
and the fix.
what is the difference between.
short_name = rand(sid);
and
short_name = sid++;
Now if you would do
short_name = MD5(long_name);
That I understand since short_name is some function of long_name
but if I'm just inventing the short_name out of my hat. In what legal
system does it matter what is my random function I use?
> Cheers, Tridge
Boaz
--
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