[ros-general] RE: Microsoft wants royalties for use of FAT

[Frank D. Engel, Jr.]

In the world of commerical NOSes, you need a license to run the client
OS on each workstation, and a *separate* license to connect the client
to the server.  The license to run the client OS on each workstation is
held by that workstation, and the connection license belongs to the
server.  They are two separate licenses.  Having a license to run a
server with 25 clients does *not* automatically grant the right to
install the client onto 25 machines; you need to obtain those licenses
separately.

At least, that's how it works with *most* commercial systems.

And then there's Linux...

--- Wierd Wierd <wierd_w at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 16:03, Casper Hornstrup wrote:>
> http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/tech/fat.aspsigh...Looks pretty
> bad, actually.  We're going to have to think about this. This patent
> really can't be licensed for use with a GPL'd operatingsystem unless
> the fundamental terms are changed.  CDs and DVDs would still be
> usable, and floppy disks might be if wedon't implement any patented
> things (FAT existed in 1985, and all thosepatents are expired now). 
> There is a problem with CD, and DVD as well. You may be able to
> implement ISO-9660 without a hitch, but microsoft's Joliet and Romeo
> (less known) file descriptors are the IP of Microsoft corp, and if
> they want to play the Filesystem IP game, they could get you there
> too.  While most CDs on the market contain an ISO-9660 volume
> descriptor, as well as a Joliet one, that could change in the future
> as a marketing pitfall issued by microsoft.  As for media exchange-
> The FAT/NTFS pitfall will be most apparent with media devices o!
>  f the
>  CompactFlash, and 'super diskette' varieties.  Devices such as USB
> flash drives, or Zip disks.  Most media these days is NOT distributed
> on floppy diskettes, so that would be a minimal pitfall- But, we
> could get tricksy with the use of FAT file system. Microsoft is
> licensing to hardware developers for the use of FAT-- this means that
> Iomega, and CompactFlash will have to take out licenses.  If the
> hardware is licensed to use FAT, does the OS really HAVE to license
> it as well? IE-- if you use an internal Zip drive (property of Iomega
> corp for design), wouldnt Iomega have to take out a license from M$
> to use the FAT file system? Is that license transferable?  If it is,
> then it should be within reasonable argument that the use of FAT on
> that particular hardware device is sanctioned.  This means that FAT
> could be supported fully on such devices, since the license has been
> paid by Iomega (or with CF devices, by CompactFlash) For older,
> legacy devices, such as the old school flop!
>  py disk
>  controller however, you would have to disable support. No FAT
> floppies.... (unless you have an LS 120, or so- might make sony happy
> if there is suddenly an increased interest in the product)I could of
> course be wrong on all this- copyright and patent laws arent my
> forte-  It just seems to me that if microsoft is selling licenses to
> hardware vendors- that is the target license model. If you support
> FAT (only) on licensed hardware devices, what is the problem?
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing>
_______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> ros-general at reactos.com
> http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

=====
=======
Frank D. Engel, Jr.

Modify the equilibrium of the vertically-oriented particle decelerator to result in the reestablishment of its resistance to counterproductive atmospheric penetration.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/