From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ducrot Bruno Subject: Re: Dynamic frequency governor Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 19:25:03 +0200 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <20031020172503.GE13989@poupinou.org> References: <20031020170010.GF21438@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031020170010.GF21438@redhat.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Dave Jones Cc: "Moore, Robert" , cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 06:00:10PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 09:33:04AM -0700, Moore, Robert wrote: > > > >From what I can tell, this has not been done yet; is this true? > > Correct. For the reason I outlined... > > > however the fact remains, whilst there are folks owning patents on > > this, it'll *never* be acceptable for merging without an exception > > grant from the patent holder. > > Here, and... > > > > There are several patents in this area (I think from Hitachi, I forget > > > exactly) It has come up before on the list, so should be in the > > > archives. Unless you can get a grant from the holder that it may be > > > used in GPL code, this has zero chance of being merged to mainline. > > Here. > Do I need to quote it a third time ? > > Dave > AFAIR, there is no patent if wide system policy which is what Bob want to implement. Only per-process (which is the most fun unfortunately) are patented. That need to be confirmed though (by Alan ?). -- Ducrot Bruno -- Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? -- Don't know. Don't care.