From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758028AbZEEIG3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 04:06:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754227AbZEEIGO (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 04:06:14 -0400 Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu ([128.173.14.107]:51161 "EHLO turing-police.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752050AbZEEIGM (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 May 2009 04:06:12 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.2 To: paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Greg KH , "Eric W. Biederman" , tridge@samba.org, Al Viro , Pavel Machek , Christoph Hellwig , 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 20:34:42 PDT." <20090505033442.GB6982@linux.vnet.ibm.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <20090504143919.GA6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504150834.GZ8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504153815.GB6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504155505.GA8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504161024.GC6740@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090504162252.GB8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090504221208.GB29402@kroah.com> <20090505020149.GE8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090505021121.GA6982@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090505021853.GF8822@parisc-linux.org> <20090505033442.GB6982@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1241510758_53910P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 04:05:58 -0400 Message-ID: <74785.1241510758@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1241510758_53910P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 04 May 2009 20:34:42 PDT, =22Paul E. McKenney=22 said: > I am more than happy to let you search the case law on this one. Ya know, it's that same =22I'll let your lawyers rediscover the stuff tha= t mine already found=22 issue that's making this thread a pain. Case saying (C) *possibly* sufficient (ruling 'c-in-hexagon' was sufficie= nt): Videotronics v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478, 481 (D. Nev. 1984) Case saying it might not be: Forry v. Neundorfer, 837 F.2d 259, 266 (6th Cir., 1988) Neundorfer says: =22Videotronics, Inc. v. Bend Electronics, 586 F.Supp. 478 (D.Nev.1984) h= eld that a letter =22C=22 enclosed within a hexagon met the statutory requirements= , but suggested in dicta that the symbol =22(C)=22 might not be sufficient beca= use parentheses, unlike a hexagon or a circle, would not completely enclose t= he =22C=22. Id. at 481. However, if a =22C=22 in a hexagon is sufficient, an= argument exists that a =22C=22 in parentheses is sufficient. Defendants here had a= ctual notice of copyright. The trial of this action may provide a better record= on which to finally decide whether the symbol =22(C)=22 is sufficiently simi= lar to a =22C=22 in a circle to serve as notice of a copyright. Plaintiff is appar= ently now using the =22C=22 in a circle. It may therefore be entitled to rely on 40= 5(a)(2) even if the earlier symbol was not sufficient.=22 Clear as mud, unless you have a more recent cite. :) --==_Exmh_1241510758_53910P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFJ//NmcC3lWbTT17ARAprzAKDtRMwHywpLiVwg1TTdTKYyHSWW/gCgyTgo NoSVc0m9SJiXDVZAqBKwpBs= =QXy9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1241510758_53910P--