From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 17:21:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 17:21:46 -0400 Received: from relay04.valueweb.net ([216.219.253.238]:21511 "EHLO relay04.valueweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 17:21:28 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEFFFF0.22900EDB@opersys.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 17:19:44 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, French/Canada, French/France, fr-FR, fr-CA MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can those patents result in trouble? Sure as hell. But let's put it this > way: I'm a _lot_ happier about a RedHat/FSMlabs patent that gets licensed > to GPL users than I am about a patent by somebody who would want to screw > with the GPL. There is no garantee that this is precisely what will happen in the future. What if MS threw a couple of millions at Victor to buy his patent (that's not that far-fetched since Victor has shown a very clear intent to make money off of his patent and since MS is clearly intent on crushing Linux) and then said that all GPL uses of this patent are prohibited? What then? Karim =================================================== Karim Yaghmour karim@opersys.com Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert ===================================================