Re: Patenting kernel patches was Re: Re-implement MCE log ring bufferas per-CPU ring buffer

[Steven Rostedt]

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Yes, I plan on being able to post it before the 31 merge window opens. I'll
> > ping the lawyer to expedite the process.
> 
> Sorry, but this is quite ridiculous. Are you serious?

Yes.

> 
> Why would we want such a patented algorithm in the kernel? Normally the
> standard
> policy is to avoid patented algorithms (unless there's really no alternative
> like
> with RCU which is clearly not the case here) and I'm not aware of this policy
> haven't
> changed.
> 
> And also holding up perfectly good uncontaminated patches for something
> patented seems especially wrong.
> 
> I think we should move forward with a standard non patented ring
> buffer Ying was working on for this and avoid the patent mess as
> far as possible.

In the world where patents can destroy Open Source/Free Software, one of 
the protections that Free Software can do is to file their own patents. 
Thus fight fire with fire.

> 
> -Andi (who wonders if he isn't in bizarro land now)

Welcome to bizarro land!

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/