From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S314929AbSEYQZ5>; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:25:57 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S314889AbSEYQZ4>; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:25:56 -0400
Received: from bitmover.com ([192.132.92.2]:33490 "EHLO bitmover.com")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S314835AbSEYQZ4>;
	Sat, 25 May 2002 12:25:56 -0400
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:25:57 -0700
From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
        Thunder from the hill <thunder@ngforever.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@e-mind.com>, Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
        Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]
Message-ID: <20020525092557.K28795@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <lm@work.bitmover.com>,
	Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>, Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
	Thunder from the hill <thunder@ngforever.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@e-mind.com>, Dan Kegel <dank@kegel.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>,
	Christoph Rohland <cr@sap.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20020524223950.D22643@work.bitmover.com> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205250152110.15928-100000@hawkeye.luckynet.adm> <20020525091444.H28795@work.bitmover.com> <3CEFB9C6.FC21D7CB@opersys.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 12:20:22PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
> 
> Larry McVoy wrote:
> > 4.  Contact FSMlabs, ask about licensing costs, compare to #3 and go with
> >     #4 if it makes sense.
> 
> Many people have said this before and I will say it again: Linux is
> fine as an open-source/free-software rtos, but as a non-free rtos it
> has no chance in front of the competition.
> 
> You can dimiss those who haven't chosen #4 as much as you want and
> find all the reasons to justify your dismissal. It remains that the
> embedded/rt market is closed to Linux because of the current situation.

Hmm, then why did Lineo license the patent?   Why is FSMlabs still in
business?  

I don't buy your assertions for one second without some strong data to
back them up.  Just saying something doesn't make it so, show me the
data.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm