| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:42:32 -0400 From: "Ryan C. Gordon" <icculus@...ulus.org> To: Rayson Ho <raysonlogin@...il.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: FatELF & patents > However, there are 20 claims in the patent. Just using a different way > to store the architecture independent header might not be enough. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't have anything to add to this except that FatELF has a few fields that Apple's format doesn't, so the flow chart they specify isn't the same. I don't really know enough about how patents work. Any lawyers around that can comment on this? Is this something to be concerned with (and if so, what sort of changes would make FatELF not violate the patent), or is this all just business as usual? --ryan. -- 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