From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chris Friesen" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 14:53:41 -0600 Message-ID: <49FF55D5.6060103@nortel.com> References: <20090504124433.GW8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504130638.GN7141@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504132119.GX8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504143919.GA6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504150834.GZ8822@parisc-linux.org> <1241451391.20170.12.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <1241453259.20170.17.camel@norville.austin.ibm.com> <20090504170636.GA56325@dspnet.fr.eu.org> <20090504172731.GA32651@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Olivier Galibert , linux-fsdevel , LKML To: Christoph Hellwig Return-path: Received: from zcars04e.nortel.com ([47.129.242.56]:49178 "EHLO zcars04e.nortel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753365AbZEDUxq (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 16:53:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090504172731.GA32651@infradead.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Because of that let us assume that IBM Corporate, Paul E. McKenney, Andrew > Tridgell and other know what code exactly infridges that patent. IBM > has worked around that code in the various embedded Linux offerings they > ship and probably urge distributors to disable it. Why would we not > remove that code unconditionally in that case and let other people > infridge it? > > Or that patent is believed to be invalid and faught, and there was > absolute no reason to remove it except for companies doing as part of a > settlement and they could do it in their privat trees. What about the scenario where a patent is valid in certain parts of the world but not in others? It seems possible that in this scenario there may be valid reasons to have a config option. Chris