ntfs-3g is in extras now: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/5/x86_64/repodata/... so there seems not to be any legal reason not to include the the ntfs kernel driver in fc kernels (its disabled now because of patent issues if I remeber correctly)
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 07:08:47PM +0200, dragoran wrote:
ntfs-3g is in extras now: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/5/x86_64/repodata/... so there seems not to be any legal reason not to include the the ntfs kernel driver in fc kernels
If this works, there's no reason for a kernel module to do the same thing.
(its disabled now because of patent issues if I remeber correctly)
Think about who (currently) has legal responsibility for distributing Fedora Core and Fedora Extras.
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 07:08:47PM +0200, dragoran wrote:
ntfs-3g is in extras now: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/5/x86_64/repodata/... so there seems not to be any legal reason not to include the the ntfs kernel driver in fc kernels
If this works, there's no reason for a kernel module to do the same thing.
I haven't tested this yet because I don't have a ntfs partition with data that I can test with. the kernel driver is "safer". I also heard that this is not 64bit safe (x86_64) dunno if its fixed now.
(its disabled now because of patent issues if I remeber correctly)
Think about who (currently) has legal responsibility for distributing Fedora Core and Fedora Extras.
redhat?
Dave
dragoran schrieb:
Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Oct 22, 2006 at 07:08:47PM +0200, dragoran wrote:
ntfs-3g is in extras now: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/5/x86_64/repodata/... so there seems not to be any legal reason not to include the the ntfs kernel driver in fc kernels
If this works, there's no reason for a kernel module to do the same thing.
[...] the kernel driver is "safer".
It's debatable if he really is "safer". But I trust the one in the kernel a lot more, too, and would like to see it enabled in future FC kernels.
CU thl
Dnia 10/22/2006 08:05 PM, Użytkownik Dave Jones napisał:
If this works, there's no reason for a kernel module to do the same thing.
Yes, there is at least one reason → https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65749#c30
Regards, Dawid
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 20:47 +0200, Dawid Gajownik wrote:
Dnia 10/22/2006 08:05 PM, Użytkownik Dave Jones napisał:
If this works, there's no reason for a kernel module to do the same thing.
Yes, there is at least one reason → https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65749#c30
This has been discussed in several Project Board meetings, including as recently as September:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board/Meetings/2006-09-19
We do have to get Red Hat's legal department to revisit this issue, but the existence of OIN (which came after GDK's comment in the bug listed above) may make a crucial difference.
At least some of the folks on the Board, maybe most, feel that since OIN has undertaken protection of the kernel, and the kernel includes an NTFS driver, that driver should be shipped enabled in the binary packages, and not merely included in source packages where users have to build it manually. Make no mistake that it *is* being shipped currently, and that any liability is likely not mitigated by the fact that it's only shipped with the kernel SRPM.
Obviously, enabling this driver would open up some cool possibilities such as helping users migrate data. I was hoping we'd have this resolved for FC6 release, but 'twas not to be.