Re: who is merlin.fit.vutbr.cz?

[Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:39:12PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> bert hubert wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 10:31:43PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > > > RCU for BitKeeper trees? :-)
> > > 
> > > Last I heard, RCU is patented by IBM, with permission to use it in GPL
> > > programs (maybe limited to version 2 of the GPL?), so that Linux can use it.
> > 
> > This is really astonishing. It is not possible to say one thing about
> > bitkeeper without descending into a discussion on patents and licenses!
> 
> No.  It's an unfortunate coincidence that you mentioned RCU on a
> BitKeeper(tm) thread.  A suggestion to use RCU in, say, Mozilla or
> FreeBSD would have elicited a similar response.
> 
> RCU patents were mentioned numerous times in the news when RCU was
> added to the kernel.  One presumes, then, that IBM was keen for it to
> be known the technique is patented, and one would be wise to tread
> carefully if intending to copy the technique as it is used in Linux,
> as you jokingly suggested.
> 
> In case you misunderstood, the grandparent post was not an attack on
> BitMover.  Fwiw, I'm on BitMover's side if the RCU patent is relevant,
> which it probably is not.  I doubt if the patent extends beyond task
> scheduling done in a certain way, although as I said I have not read it.

BitMover could care less about RCU, please leave us out of this discussion.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com