From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758266AbZEDPlX (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 11:41:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755808AbZEDPlM (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 11:41:12 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:56459 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754586AbZEDPlL (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 May 2009 11:41:11 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: tridge@samba.org Cc: Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , Matthew Wilcox , "Paul E. McKenney" , Steve French , Dave Kleikamp , Ogawa Hirofumi , linux-fsdevel , Michael Tokarev , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CONFIG_VFAT_NO_CREATE_WITH_LONGNAMES option In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 04 May 2009 08:25:05 +1000." <18942.6593.544212.571063@samba.org> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 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> <18942.6593.544212.571063@samba.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1241451636_5064P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 11:40:36 -0400 Message-ID: <21406.1241451636@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1241451636_5064P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Mon, 04 May 2009 08:25:05 +1000, tridge@samba.org said: > 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. OK - so it isn't that you *can't* explain it yourself due to a gag order of some sort, it's that it's a creeping horror convoluted mess and you're afraid you'll stuff up the explanation without professional assistance. Do I have that right? --==_Exmh_1241451636_5064P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFJ/wx0cC3lWbTT17ARAnL8AKC8dqKdKIM9BVpnvKNuRFJkrmrNBgCcCWj3 EO/ihll1GeUxA70E3y3SbxQ= =XkGW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1241451636_5064P--