Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 23:40:06 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@suse.cz>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
       Shem Multinymous <multinymous@gmail.com>,
       Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       IDE/ATA development list <linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Laptop shock detection and harddisk protection
Message-ID: <20081007214006.GL6604@elf.ucw.cz>
References: <48C7FCEE.8060404@kernel.org> <20080917180405.GB3162@kroah.com> <20080918111845.GH27832@elf.ucw.cz> <200809191104.00171.trenn@suse.de> <20080924051417.GA29993@kroah.com> <20081007204011.GG6604@elf.ucw.cz> <20081007211905.GB8151@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081007211905.GB8151@kroah.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2585
Lines: 68


> > > If you, or anyone else, writes a new driver from the published
> > > documents, that driver can be accepted.  It can not be based on the
> > > existing code written by Shem in any form.
> > 
> > Can you detail what "published" means?
> 
> Published in a way that has NOTHING to do with these source files.
> 
> > Either I can take his sources on sourceforge.net (quite well known
> > place, right) as published information, or I could not use other well
> > known sources such as wikipedia.
> 
> If the wikipedia information was written based on these source files,
> no, we can't use that, sorry.

How do I know?

> > Sources on sourceforge.net seem published-enough to me, and if you
> > insist they can't be used, you should provide some reasons...
> > 
> > [And no, just calling it "tainted" is not enough.]
> 
> {sigh}
> 
> Again, for the last time:
>   - this code was written by an anonymous person, using documents or
>     information that was obtained and used in a manner that was not
>     legal according to their employment agreement.

This code is written by anonymous person. He may have used documents
improperly, but I see no signs of that, and don't see why I should
believe you saying so.

If have proof of that, you should talk to sourceforge to take that
code down... or probably their employer should ask sourceforge to do
that.

The documents are on the web from more than year now, on
well-known. That seems to indicate that your theory is not true.

>   - because of this, we can not use this code, because we KNOW the
>     information was obtained in a improper manner.

Whole wikipedia is written by "anonymous" people. Does that mean that
all information in wikipedia was obtained in a improper manner?

>   - so, to get something like this into the kernel, we need to rewrite
>     the code, using information obtained LEGALLY from either the
>     manufacturer of the chips or computers, or from another TOTALLY
>     SEPARATE location.

I'm LEGALLY obtaining the information from sourceforge.net. That is
rather well-known, and non-anonymous source. They continue to publish
this information.

> Does that help explain this?

Unfortunately, no :-(.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/