Fedora Core 3 Wishlist

[Jeff Vian]

Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote:

>On Sun, Jun 06, 2004 at 01:58:04PM -0400, Tom Diehl wrote:
>  
>
>>On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Paul Duffy wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Sunday 06 Jun 2004 17:00, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Because you insist on using proprietary, encumbered technologies that
>>>>would make RedHat vulnerable to legal action if they distributed them.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>As they do in the kernel source they provide.
>>>      
>>>
>>Think binaries. That is what matters. Do not ask me why I am not a lawyer.
>>    
>>
>
>Well, xmms source had mp3 support removed.
>  
>
Different issue AFAICT.  The mp3 protocol is under different rules and 
there are different patent/copyright issues involved.

NTFS is a filesystem that can be read by anything that can read raw data 
from the disk (all filesystems contain data on the disk so this is no 
surprise).  How it is handled is  the subject of their proprietary 
software, and anybody can freely develop the code to read the data, and 
even write it (if you ignore the metadata).  However, 'how' the data is 
read is by handling the raw data from the disk.  Even the linux NTFS 
modules are still listed as experimental and the last time I checked 
were 'read only'.  As I understand it, the metadata for the filesystem 
which contains the filesystem permissions, access lists, etc., is the 
really tough stuff to handle and so NTFS as it is used by linux does not 
utilize the metadata files, but rather ignores that stuff.

If I understand correctly, reading the data is not illegal.  Writing it 
*using techniques that would not hose the filesystem* is the tough (and 
possibley illegal) part, because it would have to utilize the same 
metadata management as used by M$.

>  
>
>>I do not know. Ask YOUR lawyer. If your lawyer says this is wrong take it up
>>wth Red Hat's legal department, not this list. Red Hat's legal dept. opinion
>>is all that matters wrt inclusion of NTFS in the distro. Nothing else will
>>get it included.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Now, if you can adopt a less patronising attitude (as some of us don't really 
>>>have an option when it comes to not installing Windows and it doesn't always 
>>>let you format for FAT32 on install) and tell me how including it in the 
>>>kernel source but not the kernel makes a legal difference that would be much 
>>>appreciated.
>>>      
>>>
>>Ummm, lets see NTFS source is closed. In the USA Reverse engineering is
>>illegal (Think DMCA).
>>    
>>
>
>That's not true. Well, not globally anyway.
>
>  
>
>>Red Hat is a USA based Corporation, therefore subject
>>to the laws of the USA. Is this clear enough for you or do I need to continue
>>explaining the obvious?
>>    
>>
>
>Well, I'm not in the USA. Couldn't Fedora have an International section?
>
>  
>
>>If you really need this included in an Open Source
>>distro why not get M$ to open source the NTFS file system.
>>    
>>
>
>Not enough. The problem here is in the patent system.
>
>  
>
>>I am sure if they
>>did that everyone would then include it in their distro. Until then if you
>>must use this crap then you will have to recompile the modules.
>>
>>This is my 1 and only response to this thread. If you need a further
>>explaination, try reading the archives. If people would at least try reading
>>the archives b4 posting the traffic on this and most lists would be greatly
>>reduced.
>>    
>>
>
>True, it gets tiresome. Could an automatic reply system for such usual
>cases be implemented?
>
>Regards,
>Luciano Rocha
>
>  
>