On Sun, 21 Aug 2005, Leonid Grossman wrote: > Ahh, I was curious to see if someone will bring this argument up - in > fact, LRO legal issues do not exist, while TOE legal issues are quite > big at the moment. I guess this is one of the reasons why OpenRDMA and > other mainstream industry efforts don't have any provisions for TOE > support.
Chelsio has assured us that their approach is patent free. They can provide details on the legal work done on the issue. > As I mentioned in Ottawa, there is indeed a patent application filed > about a year ago for Neterion basic LRO implementation. Good news for you. But why should Linux support proprietary patented technology? > Anyways, since the application is not granted yet it's probably too > early to discuss it's future - but if any vendor wants to have peace of > mind, we can talk and get this out of the way; we are obviously > motivated to make LRO a de-facto NIC feature (much like TSO and other > stateless offloads have become). How much will the permission cost for a hardware vendor to be allowed to implement LRO? > Unlike LRO, TOE is covered by number of existing patents and faces > fundamental legal challenges as we speak, for both OS vendors and IHVs - > as recent Alacritech/Microsoft/Broadcom lawsuit and settlement just > clearly demonstrated :-) That is not true. The proposed implementation is not covered by the lawsuit. Chelsio got a legal review before posting the patches to insure that this is not the case. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
