On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 16:55 -0800, Yuhong Bao wrote:
> > > I read the patent and it looks like UEFI or for that matter any
> > > non
> > > -Windows implementation of FAT would probably not infringe on the
> > > patent.
> >
> > Well, I'm not going to give you a legal opinion. However, most
> > peop
On Thu, 2016-01-07 at 18:03 +, Yuhong Bao wrote:
> James Bottomley writes:
> > As you can see, they're mostly expired (in the US) but the last one
> > will expire in 2020 (if I calculate the date correctly).
> If you are referring to US6286013,
That's the latest expiring one, yes.
> I read
James Bottomley writes:
> As you can see, they're mostly expired (in the US) but the last one
> will expire in 2020 (if I calculate the date correctly).
If you are referring to US6286013, I read the patent and it looks like
UEFI or for that matter any non-Windows implementation of FAT would
prob
On Fri, 2015-12-04 at 08:46 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> > > That seems weird enough that I'd rather push back on our Platinum
> > > Board
> > > member to fix the licensing before we le
On 12/10/2015 2:21 AM, Ren, Qiaowei wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 9:47 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI
spec
On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 9:47 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI
> spec
>
> On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM,
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2015 9:47 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI
> spec
>
> On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM,
k-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Testing concerns around boot from UEFI spec
On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Can someone explain the licensing issue here? The Fedora comments make
>>
On 12/04/2015 08:34 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
>> Can someone explain the licensing issue here? The Fedora comments make
>> this sound like this is something that's not likely to end up in distros.
>
> The EDK codebase contains a FAT
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 07:43:41AM -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> Can someone explain the licensing issue here? The Fedora comments make
> this sound like this is something that's not likely to end up in distros.
The EDK codebase contains a FAT driver which has a license that forbids
reusing the code
On 12/03/2015 08:42 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>
>
> On 12/3/2015 9:35 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> The boot from UEFI spec [1] is stalled a bit on testing concerns. I've
>> asked that there is integration testing (either upstream or Intel hosts
>> a 3rd party job for it), or we log a warning when
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 07:42:43PM -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I already mentioned this to sdague before the nova meeting today (these are
> the things I think about while driving in the middle of nowhere), but option
> #3 won't work because boot from UEFI requires libvirt>=1.9.0, which we don'
On 12/3/2015 9:35 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
The boot from UEFI spec [1] is stalled a bit on testing concerns. I've
asked that there is integration testing (either upstream or Intel hosts
a 3rd party job for it), or we log a warning when it's used saying it's
untested and therefore considered ex
The boot from UEFI spec [1] is stalled a bit on testing concerns. I've
asked that there is integration testing (either upstream or Intel hosts
a 3rd party job for it), or we log a warning when it's used saying it's
untested and therefore considered experimental.
I think we also want to point o
14 matches
Mail list logo