On Sun, 6 Jun 2004, Paul Duffy wrote: > On Sunday 06 Jun 2004 17:00, Sean Estabrooks wrote: > > Because you insist on using proprietary, encumbered technologies that > > would make RedHat vulnerable to legal action if they distributed them. > > As they do in the kernel source they provide. Think binaries. That is what matters. Do not ask me why I am not a lawyer. I do not know. Ask YOUR lawyer. If your lawyer says this is wrong take it up wth Red Hat's legal department, not this list. Red Hat's legal dept. opinion is all that matters wrt inclusion of NTFS in the distro. Nothing else will get it included. > Now, if you can adopt a less patronising attitude (as some of us don't really > have an option when it comes to not installing Windows and it doesn't always > let you format for FAT32 on install) and tell me how including it in the > kernel source but not the kernel makes a legal difference that would be much > appreciated. Ummm, lets see NTFS source is closed. In the USA Reverse engineering is illegal (Think DMCA). Red Hat is a USA based Corporation, therefore subject to the laws of the USA. Is this clear enough for you or do I need to continue explaining the obvious? If you really need this included in an Open Source distro why not get M$ to open source the NTFS file system. I am sure if they did that everyone would then include it in their distro. Until then if you must use this crap then you will have to recompile the modules. This is my 1 and only response to this thread. If you need a further explaination, try reading the archives. If people would at least try reading the archives b4 posting the traffic on this and most lists would be greatly reduced. Regards, Tom
