Re: FAT patent uphelp, now what?

[n0dalus <n0dalus+redhat gmail com>]

On 1/12/06, Neal Becker <ndbecker2 gmail com> wrote:
> If FAT patent is upheld, then I guess FAT support has to be removed.
>

I think the patents in question are only to do with simultaneously
supporting 8.3 filenames and long filenames. If that's correct then we
would only have to remove that particular part of the code (if that
functionality even exists on Linux vfat) since it's not really needed
anyway.

n0dalus.