I have an out-of-tree driver for the exfat file system that I beaten into shape
for upstreaming. The driver works, and passes sparse and checkpatch (except
for a number of line-too-long complaints).
Do you want this taken straight to the fs/ tree, or through drivers/staging?
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 08:37:42PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> I have an out-of-tree driver for the exfat file system that I beaten into shape
> for upstreaming. The driver works, and passes sparse and checkpatch (except
> for a number of line-too-long complaints).
>
> Do you want this taken straight to the fs/ tree, or through drivers/staging?
First of all, post it...
On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 01:52:20 +0100, Al Viro said:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 08:37:42PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> > I have an out-of-tree driver for the exfat file system that I beaten into shape
> > for upstreaming. The driver works, and passes sparse and checkpatch (except
> > for a number of line-too-long complaints).
> >
> > Do you want this taken straight to the fs/ tree, or through drivers/staging?
>
> First of all, post it...
OK... Ill post it as if it's going in fs/ and if people disagree, I'll repost it for
drivers/staging (once any other complaints have been corrected)...
On Mon, Jul 08, 2019 at 08:37:42PM -0400, Valdis Klētnieks wrote:
> I have an out-of-tree driver for the exfat file system that I beaten into shape
> for upstreaming. The driver works, and passes sparse and checkpatch (except
> for a number of line-too-long complaints).
>
> Do you want this taken straight to the fs/ tree, or through drivers/staging?
How have you dealt with the patent claims which Microsoft has
asserted[1] on the exFAT file system design?
[1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/mtl/exfat-licensing.aspx
I am not making any claims about the validity of Microsoft's patent
assertions on exFAT, one way or another. But it might be a good idea
for some laywers from the Linux Foundation to render some legal advice
to their employees (namely Greg K-H and Linus Torvalds) regarding the
advisability of taking exFAT into the official Linux tree.
Personally, if Microsoft is going to be unfriendly about not wanting
others to use their file system technology by making patent claims,
why should we reward them by making their file system better by
improvings its interoperability? (My personal opinion only.)
Cheers,
- Ted
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 12:50:20AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> How have you dealt with the patent claims which Microsoft has
> asserted[1] on the exFAT file system design?
>
> [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/mtl/exfat-licensing.aspx
>
> I am not making any claims about the validity of Microsoft's patent
> assertions on exFAT, one way or another. But it might be a good idea
> for some laywers from the Linux Foundation to render some legal advice
> to their employees (namely Greg K-H and Linus Torvalds) regarding the
> advisability of taking exFAT into the official Linux tree.
>
> Personally, if Microsoft is going to be unfriendly about not wanting
> others to use their file system technology by making patent claims,
> why should we reward them by making their file system better by
> improvings its interoperability? (My personal opinion only.)
How does
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
change your personal opinion?
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> How does
> https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
> change your personal opinion?
According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN doesn't
mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft*
contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel. That's because the
OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS
contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't count.
For more details:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
(This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
- Ted
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > How does
> > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
> > change your personal opinion?
>
> According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN doesn't
> mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft*
> contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel. That's because the
> OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS
> contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't count.
>
> For more details:
>
> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
>
> (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be
observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from
Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 08:48 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > How does
> > > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-p
> > > atent-portfolio/
> > > change your personal opinion?
> >
> > According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN
> > doesn't mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft*
> > contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel. That's because
> > the OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS
> > contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't
> > count.
> >
> > For more details:
> >
> > https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
> >
> > (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
>
> Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be
> observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work
> from Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
KY, if you need local help to convince anyone, I can do that ... I've
been deeply involved in patent issues with open source from the
community angle for a while and I'm used to talking to corporate
counsels. Personally I think we could catch Microsoft in the implied
licence to the FAT patent simply by putting exfat in the kernel and
waiting for them to distribute it but I think it would benefit
Microsoft much more from a community perspective to make an open
donation of the FAT patents to Linux in much the same way they've
already done for UEFI. If my analysis of the distribution situation is
correct, it would be making a virtue of a necessity anyway which is
always a useful business case argument.
James
On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 08:48:34 -0700, Matthew Wilcox said:
> Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be
> observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from
> Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
I'd be totally OK with that....
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> > How does
>> > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-portfolio/
>> > change your personal opinion?
>>
>> According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN doesn't
>> mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft*
>> contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel. That's because the
>> OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS
>> contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't count.
>>
>> For more details:
>>
>> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
>>
>> (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
>
>Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be
>observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from
>Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
Huh, that's really how this works? Let me talk with our lawyers to clear
this up.
Would this mean, hypothetically, that if MS has claims against the
kernel's scheduler for example, it can still assert them if no one from
MS touched the code? And then they lose that ability if a MS employee
adds a tiny fix in?
--
Thanks,
Sasha
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 8:49 AM
To: Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]>; Valdis Kl?tnieks <[email protected]>; Alexander Viro <[email protected]>; Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; KY Srinivasan <[email protected]>
Cc: Sasha Levin <[email protected]>
Subject: exfat filesystem
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > How does
> > https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
> > w.zdnet.com%2Farticle%2Fmicrosoft-open-sources-its-entire-patent-por
> > tfolio%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ckys%40microsoft.com%7Cd73183ff28c94bbbf
> > 6dd08d70484f009%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C6369828
> > 41322780798&sdata=TCSgqe0h4FYaA5BBGVJl98WFBqbEHSo8B0FhlfTYVVA%3D
> > &reserved=0
> > change your personal opinion?
>
> According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN doesn't
> mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless *Microsoft*
> contributes the code to the Linux usptream kernel. That's because the
> OIN is governed by the Linux System Definition, and until MS
> contributes code which covered by the exFAT patents, it doesn't count.
>
> For more details:
>
> https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsfco
> nservancy.org%2Fblog%2F2018%2Foct%2F10%2Fmicrosoft-oin-exfat%2F&da
> ta=02%7C01%7Ckys%40microsoft.com%7Cd73183ff28c94bbbf6dd08d70484f009%7C
> 72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636982841322780798&sdat
> a=y%2BhZFhjIXUrFVn5%2FN%2BRVxRQWzYs2QI5V1jM8SDPN2dg%3D&reserved=0
>
> (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
>Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from >Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
Matthew,
Let me dig up the details here.
K. Y
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would be
> observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the work from
> Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how about it?
It might be that the simplest way to do this is just to have someone
from Microsoft send the pull request (with a signed tag) to Linus.
There are any number ways to arrange this but the PGP-signed tag might
be sufficient. Alternatively, some kind of declaration from a
Microsoft lawyer to OIN might be sufficient. This is where asking the
LF if they can bring together a meeting of the minds of LF, OIN, and
Microsoft lawyers might make things much easier.
- Ted
On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:39:31 -0000, KY Srinivasan said:
> Let me dig up the details here.
In case this helps clarify the chain of events, the code in question
is the Samsung code mentioned here, updated to 5.2 kernel....
"We know that Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns in the past on Linux
products related to the exfat filesystem. While we at Conservancy were
successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released under
GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So, Microsoft
has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent
non-aggression pact."
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
(Link in that para points here):
https://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/
On Tue, 2019-07-09 at 12:37 -0400, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:48:34AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:30:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 04:21:36AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > How does
> > > > https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-entire
> > > > -patent-portfolio/
> > > > change your personal opinion?
> > >
> > > According to SFC's legal analysis, Microsoft joining the OIN
> > > doesn't mean that the eXFAT patents are covered, unless
> > > *Microsoft* contributes the code to the Linux usptream
> > > kernel. That's because the OIN is governed by the Linux System
> > > Definition, and until MS contributes code which covered by the
> > > exFAT patents, it doesn't count.
> > >
> > > For more details:
> > >
> > > https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
> > >
> > > (This is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.)
> >
> > Interesting analysis. It seems to me that the correct forms would
> > be observed if someone suitably senior at Microsoft accepted the
> > work from Valdis and submitted it with their sign-off. KY, how
> > about it?
>
> Huh, that's really how this works? Let me talk with our lawyers to
> clear this up.
Not exactly, no. A corporate signoff is useful evidence of intent to
bind patents, but a formal statement would be better and wouldn't
require a signoff. The SFC analysis is also a bit lacking:
hypothetically if exfat became part of Linux, it would be covered by
the OIN legal definition which would place MS in an untenable position
with regard to the mutual defence pact if it still wanted to enforce
FAT patents against Linux.
> Would this mean, hypothetically, that if MS has claims against the
> kernel's scheduler for example, it can still assert them if no one
> from MS touched the code? And then they lose that ability if a MS
> employee adds a tiny fix in?
No. You're already shipping a linux kernel, that makes Microsoft a
distributor meaning you're bound by the GPL express patent licences so
any patent Microsoft has on technology in the Linux kernel would be
unenforceable under that. Plus as a member of OIN, you've guaranteed
not to sue for any patent that reads on the Linux System definition,
which is also a promise you can be held to.
James
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Valdis Kletnieks <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Valdis Kletnieks
> Sent: Tuesday, July 9, 2019 9:51 AM
> To: KY Srinivasan <[email protected]>
> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]>; Theodore Ts'o
> <[email protected]>; Alexander Viro <[email protected]>; Greg Kroah-
> Hartman <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; Sasha Levin
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: exfat filesystem
>
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2019 16:39:31 -0000, KY Srinivasan said:
>
> > Let me dig up the details here.
>
> In case this helps clarify the chain of events, the code in question is the
> Samsung code mentioned here, updated to 5.2 kernel....
>
> "We know that Microsoft has done patent troll shakedowns in the past on
> Linux products related to the exfat filesystem. While we at Conservancy
> were successful in getting the code that implements exfat for Linux released
> under GPL (by Samsung), that code has not been upstreamed into Linux. So,
> Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the
> patent non-aggression pact."
>
> https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/oct/10/microsoft-oin-exfat/
>
> (Link in that para points here):
> https://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/
>
Thanks Valdis. I have started an internal thread on this; will get back ASAP.
K. Y