Re: [PATCH] nwfs-2.4.15-pre5-4 NWFS Patch

[Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, XXXXX wrote:

> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> > I've posted another patch.  Te previous patch for some reason had
> > some fixes to NTFS included as well.  Corrected.  This patch is
> > located at ftp.timpanogas.org:/nwfs/nwfs-2.4.15-pre5-4.gz and incorporates
> > the NetWare File System (NWFS) into Linux kernel 2.4.15-pre5.
> > 
> > This patch is submitted to Linus for consideration of inclusion into
> > the Linux kernel.
> 
> (reply re-directly privately to you, andre)
> 
> I don't understand the big secrecy or whatever, on IRC.
> 
> If nwfs is legal to submit to Linus, then no problem.  If it's not, then
> problem.  Either way it's an honest question, "is this legal to
> post/submit to Linus?"

Mr. Jeff V. Merkey,

As you can see above, there are great concerns over the nature and status
of the source code you have submitted for inclusion to the main linux
kernel source tree.  Given that I have intimate and detailed personal
knowledge of your company, the nature an evolution of the source code
in question, the following requirement is issued to you and your general
council Mr. Andrew McCullough.

The follow issues must be settled in a legal brief to be reviewed by
myself, any appointed general council, and key members of the core linux
kernel development team and/or their employer.  This may include other
organizations where this content may be redistributed.

The first date and time the intial code base for the introduction of
NetWare File System (classification to mimic) (now referred as NWFS),
which is to be a direct replacement for system infrastucture based upon
your time as original author of the Novell 4.XX NWFS, during your
employment as "Second Fellow" and "Chief Architect".

Based on general knowledge of case Law in the State of Uath, you must
legal define the date of first public disclosure of your rewrite of
methodology to access/update native storage environments having the
commerical product know to all as Novell OS (NOS) install upon the media.

Working from that date forward, you are required to outline all formal
actionable steps taken by your former employer Novell that either can be
properly described as legal, acceptable attempts to statisfy terms and
conditions for the two (2) year period that claims can be made against
TRG et al.  If this time period has expired and Novell may not take
action, then to the best of my knowledge the materials submitted could be
acceptable for review.  However, should there be any references or
capablities to include the Novell Extended Directory Serivces
(E-Directory), you will be required to remove such material.

Repeating the previous process above, but to include any environments 
which can be exercised in any other legal forum not described above.

I have now placed myself in an unstable position; however, until these
issues can be addressed and verified, you should not expect the adoption
of your work on this matter to be accepted at the current time.

Should you be able to statisfy mine and others concerns in the core
development team, hand picked by Linus Torvalds, I would drop my concerns
and suggest global review for adoption.  You should know that I can only
make suggestions, and raise issues of concern.  The final decision is
solely the responsiblity of Linus Torvalds.


Respectfully,

Andre Hedrick
----------------
Former "CTO Timpanogas Research Group"
Former "EVP Linux Development, TRG"