From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264371AbTLVJoA (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:44:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264373AbTLVJoA (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:44:00 -0500 Received: from 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk ([81.2.122.30]:21376 "EHLO 81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264371AbTLVJn7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2003 04:43:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 09:50:07 GMT From: John Bradford Message-Id: <200312220950.hBM9o7Xr000488@81-2-122-30.bradfords.org.uk> To: Jamie Lokier , Stan Bubrouski Cc: linux-kernel mailing list In-Reply-To: <20031221215717.GA6507@mail.shareable.org> References: <1071969177.1742.112.camel@cube> <20031221105333.GC3438@mail.shareable.org> <1072034966.1286.119.camel@duergar> <20031221215717.GA6507@mail.shareable.org> Subject: Re: [OT] use of patented algorithms in the kernel ok or not? Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quote from Jamie Lokier : > That's why I said it's uncharted territory. We don't know how safe it > is to publish code that *doesn't do anything* but does embody a > patented technique *only if the recipient deliberately modifies the > code*. Look at the MTD code. John.