From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Al Viro Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 23:56:16 +0100 Message-ID: <20090503225616.GD8633@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> References: <524f69650905011318m34e0027dt57877d225b3fe2da@mail.gmail.com> <20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org> <20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090502015927.GJ8822@parisc-linux.org> <18940.3862.34000.615391@samba.org> <20090502092204.GA32066@infradead.org> <18940.4762.726933.677059@samba.org> <20090503215727.GF1368@ucw.cz> <18942.6593.544212.571063@samba.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , "Paul E. McKenney" , Steve French , Dave Kleikamp , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , LKML To: tridge@samba.org Return-path: Received: from zeniv.linux.org.uk ([195.92.253.2]:54518 "EHLO ZenIV.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752624AbZECW4f (ORCPT ); Sun, 3 May 2009 18:56:35 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18942.6593.544212.571063@samba.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 08:25:05AM +1000, tridge@samba.org wrote: > Hi Pavel, > > > Well if they are obvious, please get us someone who _can_ discuss them > > with us. Preferably a lawyer that can explain why the patch is > > neccessary. > > I am trying to get that to happen, and I do realise that getting a > lawyer to publicly explain the situation would be really > worthwhile. Unfortunately lawyers are (mostly) very shy of making > public statements of this type, because the legal consequences of > making these statements can be non-trivial. Practical consequences of establishing that kind of precedent (applying a patch on the grounds of nothing but vague references to possibly legal problems, with author explicitly refusing to explain exact reasons) can also be non-trivial... And I'm not sure that it won't have legal ones as well, while we are at it.