Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

Larry McVoy
2002-05-26T18:29:53Z

Around and around we go - I'm seeing why Victor is sick of this. A few
words of advice and then I hope we're done with this thread because I
don't know what else can be said which hasn't been said before.

On Sun, May 26, 2002 at 02:00:42PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> What is "use of the method"?

Ask a lawyer.

> "Do I need to purchase a license from FSMLabs if I write an RTAI
> rt applications?"

Ask a lawyer.

> What is the "user mode" bit? Does your statement apply to the RTAI hard-rt
> user-space applications which have been described earlier on this list?

Ask a lawyer.

> > Similarly, I doubt
> > as one can write a non-GPL module for gcc, run it under NetBSD as a BSD
> > kernel module and claim benefit of the BSD License to close it.
>
> I don't think that such a comparison can be applied.

If you want to know for sure, hire a lawyer.

> So too should your clients be very worried as to the code you are selling
> them. Any one of the current RTAI developers can now sue you and your
> clients for code theft.

Sounds like you need a lawyer.

> RTAI developers may have mislabeled some licenses, but they sure as hell
> don't sell closed-source versions of the resulting code.

Snort. "may have mislabeled". Snort.

> As I was telling Larry earlier. The software industry as we know it is an
> endangered species.

Tell that to Microsoft, watch them laugh.

> BTW, you still haven't answered my questions.

I read your whole posting carefully, a couple of times. You're basically
asking for free legal advice from a party whom with you compete, may possibly
sue, and/or may be sued by. Do you seriously expect answers or are you
just posturing? Rhetorical question, please don't answer it.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm