From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1755576AbZECWZp@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755576AbZECWZp (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 3 May 2009 18:25:45 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752277AbZECWZe
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Sun, 3 May 2009 18:25:34 -0400
Received: from mail.samba.org ([66.70.73.150]:51244 "EHLO lists.samba.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751573AbZECWZe (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 3 May 2009 18:25:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <18942.6593.544212.571063@samba.org>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 08:25:05 +1000
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
       "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
       Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
       Ogawa Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>,
       linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option
In-Reply-To: <20090503215727.GF1368@ucw.cz>
References: <524f69650905011318m34e0027dt57877d225b3fe2da@mail.gmail.com>
	<20090501210109.GA3079@infradead.org>
	<20090502013729.GI6996@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<20090502015927.GJ8822@parisc-linux.org>
	<18940.3862.34000.615391@samba.org>
	<20090502092204.GA32066@infradead.org>
	<18940.4762.726933.677059@samba.org>
	<20090503215727.GF1368@ucw.cz>
X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12 under 22.2.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Reply-To: tridge@samba.org
From: tridge@samba.org
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Hi Pavel,

 > Well if they are obvious, please get us someone who _can_ discuss them
 > with us. Preferably a lawyer that can explain why the patch is
 > neccessary.

I am trying to get that to happen, and I do realise that getting a
lawyer to publicly explain the situation would be really
worthwhile. Unfortunately lawyers are (mostly) very shy of making
public statements of this type, because the legal consequences of
making these statements can be non-trivial.

Cheers, Tridge