On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.aspsigh...Looks pretty bad, actually. We're going to have to think about this. This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operatingsystem unless the fundamental terms are changed. CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if wedon't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all thosepatents are expired now). There is a problem with CD, and DVD as well. You may be able to implement ISO-9660 without a hitch, but microsoft's Joliet and Romeo (less known) file descriptors are the IP of Microsoft corp, and if they want to play the Filesystem IP game, they could get you there too. While most CDs on the market contain an ISO-9660 volume descriptor, as well as a Joliet one, that could change in the future as a marketing pitfall issued by microsoft. As for media exchange- The FAT/NTFS pitfall will be most apparent with media devices o! f the CompactFlash, and 'super diskette' varieties. Devices such as USB flash drives, or Zip disks. Most media these days is NOT distributed on floppy diskettes, so that would be a minimal pitfall- But, we could get tricksy with the use of FAT file system. Microsoft is licensing to hardware developers for the use of FAT-- this means that Iomega, and CompactFlash will have to take out licenses. If the hardware is licensed to use FAT, does the OS really HAVE to license it as well? IE-- if you use an internal Zip drive (property of Iomega corp for design), wouldnt Iomega have to take out a license from M$ to use the FAT file system? Is that license transferable? If it is, then it should be within reasonable argument that the use of FAT on that particular hardware device is sanctioned. This means that FAT could be supported fully on such devices, since the license has been paid by Iomega (or with CF devices, by CompactFlash) For older, legacy devices, such as the old school flop! py disk controller however, you would have to disable support. No FAT floppies.... (unless you have an LS 120, or so- might make sony happy if there is suddenly an increased interest in the product)I could of course be wrong on all this- copyright and patent laws arent my forte- It just seems to me that if microsoft is selling licenses to hardware vendors- that is the target license model. If you support FAT (only) on licensed hardware devices, what is the problem?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
Wierd Wierd wrote:
This means that FAT could be supported fully on such devices, since the license has been paid by Iomega (or with CF devices, by CompactFlash) For older, legacy devices, such as the old school floppy disk controller however, you would have to disable support. No FAT floppies.... (unless you have an LS 120, or so- might make sony happy if there is suddenly an increased interest in the product) I could of course be wrong on all this- copyright and patent laws arent my forte- It just seems to me that if microsoft is selling licenses to hardware vendors- that is the target license model. If you support FAT (only) on licensed hardware devices, what is the problem?
My impression is that Zip drives and LS-120 super disk drives do not need a FAT license. They are just block devices. It's the host that arranges those blocks into a FAT volume. If the drive is integrated into a stand-alone produce like a digital camera, then Microsoft commands a licensing fee.
-rick
In the world of commerical NOSes, you need a license to run the client OS on each workstation, and a *separate* license to connect the client to the server. The license to run the client OS on each workstation is held by that workstation, and the connection license belongs to the server. They are two separate licenses. Having a license to run a server with 25 clients does *not* automatically grant the right to install the client onto 25 machines; you need to obtain those licenses separately.
At least, that's how it works with *most* commercial systems.
And then there's Linux...
--- Wierd Wierd wierd_w@yahoo.com wrote:
On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.aspsigh...Looks pretty bad, actually. We're going to have to think about this. This patent really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operatingsystem unless the fundamental terms are changed. CDs and DVDs would still be usable, and floppy disks might be if wedon't implement any patented things (FAT existed in 1985, and all thosepatents are expired now). There is a problem with CD, and DVD as well. You may be able to implement ISO-9660 without a hitch, but microsoft's Joliet and Romeo (less known) file descriptors are the IP of Microsoft corp, and if they want to play the Filesystem IP game, they could get you there too. While most CDs on the market contain an ISO-9660 volume descriptor, as well as a Joliet one, that could change in the future as a marketing pitfall issued by microsoft. As for media exchange- The FAT/NTFS pitfall will be most apparent with media devices o! f the CompactFlash, and 'super diskette' varieties. Devices such as USB flash drives, or Zip disks. Most media these days is NOT distributed on floppy diskettes, so that would be a minimal pitfall- But, we could get tricksy with the use of FAT file system. Microsoft is licensing to hardware developers for the use of FAT-- this means that Iomega, and CompactFlash will have to take out licenses. If the hardware is licensed to use FAT, does the OS really HAVE to license it as well? IE-- if you use an internal Zip drive (property of Iomega corp for design), wouldnt Iomega have to take out a license from M$ to use the FAT file system? Is that license transferable? If it is, then it should be within reasonable argument that the use of FAT on that particular hardware device is sanctioned. This means that FAT could be supported fully on such devices, since the license has been paid by Iomega (or with CF devices, by CompactFlash) For older, legacy devices, such as the old school flop! py disk controller however, you would have to disable support. No FAT floppies.... (unless you have an LS 120, or so- might make sony happy if there is suddenly an increased interest in the product)I could of course be wrong on all this- copyright and patent laws arent my forte- It just seems to me that if microsoft is selling licenses to hardware vendors- that is the target license model. If you support FAT (only) on licensed hardware devices, what is the problem?
Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing>
_______________________________________________
ros-general mailing list ros-general@reactos.com http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
===== ======= Frank D. Engel, Jr.
Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing. http://photos.yahoo.com/
On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 18:55, Wierd Wierd wrote:
There is a problem with CD, and DVD as well. You may be able to implement ISO-9660 without a hitch, but microsoft's Joliet and Romeo (less known) file descriptors are the IP of Microsoft corp
True. For these cases, I think we have to implement the non-patented stuff and keep an eye on the marketplace for incompatbile CDs. I think we'll need to take the same approach wrt FAT, for what that's worth.
I thought UDF (dvd format) had LFN support built-in.
Does anyone know the patent status of ISO9660 and UDF? It sure would be a bummer to find out that they are patented too.
Also, whence cometh El Toritio?
IE-- if you use an internal Zip drive (property of Iomega corp for design), wouldnt Iomega have to take out a license from M$ to use the FAT file system? Is that license transferable?
IANAL, but I'd say that anytime you write code to do patented things, you have to have a license to do it. This includes your code reading a FAT filesystem (at least for the patented bits).
-Vizzini
At 09.23 09/12/2003, you wrote:
I thought UDF (dvd format) had LFN support built-in.
DVDs, AFAIK, use ISO9660. UDF is used for packet writing of CDs
Does anyone know the patent status of ISO9660 and UDF? It sure would be a bummer to find out that they are patented too.
UDF may be Adaptec's territory. ISO9660, well, is called ISO-something for a reason: it's a standard. But it just sucks too much to be used as-is (hence Joliet, ElTorito, etc.)
Also, whence cometh El Toritio?
should be patent-free. Full of UNIX-isms that shouldn't get in the way too much
-
Frank D. Engel, Jr. -
KJK::Hyperion -
Rick Parrish -
Vizzini -
Wierd Wierd