Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Bryan Vyhmeister]

On Fri, Jun 3, 2016, at 09:13 AM, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> Upstream decided to install manual pages by default and
> released 1.2.4.
> Patches are not needed any more. Updated port of fuse-exfat attached.
 
Any possibility this could get committed? It would be extremely useful
for reading SDXC cards.
 
Bryan

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Mikolaj Kucharski]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 09:09:43PM +0100, Mikolaj Kucharski wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:31:14PM +0200, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> > Mikolaj Kucharski said:
> > > Are you saying I should modify port to include:
> > > 
> > > PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM =patents
> > > PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP =  Yes
> > 
> > This is what we normally do in such cases.  I would be happy to import
> > it with this change.  OK?
> 
> Yeah, that sounds fine. I'm attaching new port which includes above
> permit lines and also some other tiny changes.

Upstream decided to install manual pages by default and released 1.2.4.
Patches are not needed any more. Updated port of fuse-exfat attached.

-- 
best regards
q#


fuse-exfat-1.2.4-port.tgz
Description: application/tar-gz

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Mikolaj Kucharski]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:31:14PM +0200, Dmitrij D. Czarkoff wrote:
> Mikolaj Kucharski said:
> > Are you saying I should modify port to include:
> > 
> > PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM =  patents
> > PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP =Yes
> 
> This is what we normally do in such cases.  I would be happy to import
> it with this change.  OK?

Yeah, that sounds fine. I'm attaching new port which includes above
permit lines and also some other tiny changes.

-- 
best regards
q#


fuse-exfat-1.2.3-port-v2.tgz
Description: application/tar-gz

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Dmitrij D. Czarkoff]

Mikolaj Kucharski said:
> Are you saying I should modify port to include:
> 
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM =patents
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP =  Yes

This is what we normally do in such cases.  I would be happy to import
it with this change.  OK?

-- 
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Raul Miller]

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:41 AM, Ray Lai  wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the laws are for distributing patented 
> code, source or binary, paid CD-ROM or free FTP.

In my experience, you should be able to count on lots of people - both
outside the legal profession, and inside - to make up all sorts of
crud about those laws.

But I expect that none of that really matters, because it also seems
like you can count on different courts saying different things (if
they are willing to say anything at all), based on their ideas of what
reasonable behavior looks like (and their own extensive knowledge of
laws and history that no one else knows about). (But, also, I'm
not sure that much of anything in the computer industry is based on
reasonable behavior.)

That said...

Most patents are worthless if you are willing to put in the effort to
research them. I've been through a number of patent proceedings, and I
can at least tell you a bit about the USA patent mechanisms:

Patents are essentially a set of claims. Patent law is based on a
"guilty until proven innocent" philosophy which means it sort of does
not matter what they say - if someone says you are guilty of violating
them, you are technically in violation at that point in time. But if
you can show that all of the claims on a patent are either (a) so
narrow that they do not apply to you, or (b) so broad that they apply
to things which existed before the patent was filed, then you become
innocent of violating that patent. But you have no way of knowing what
patents have been filed, because there are too many of them to
understand, and because no one really cares. But in practice: [a] the
wording of patent claims is so ambiguous that you can almost always
show that you are innocent of violating any patent claims, and [b] the
process of proving your innocence is so expensive that almost no one
actually cares about the patent process. I have read that it costs on
the order of $12 million to deal with a patent court case, and people
with that kind of money don't have the time to understand the relevant
technology - so they delegate the details to people they can get along
with Anyways, it's a mess and almost always a bad investment. But
for the few people with more than enough money to fund this kind of
thing, it's also something they might be doing just on general
principles or because someone asked them to be doing that.

The net effect is that what patents say doesn't really matter all that
much. If someone threatens you with a patent lawsuit you can be almost
guaranteed that they have almost no idea what you are doing, and that
they will loudly assert that you are wrong. If this happens to you,
you should spend some time in a library (the kind that has books, not
a computer based transient phenomena) and sit down and find prior art
(typically from previous centuries) for each of the the things you are
doing which correspond to claims of the patents you are supposedly
"violating". You should expect this to take days, or weeks - don't
give up prematurely. Or, if you don't care that much about what you
are doing, you should have been doing something different in the first
place.

And if you want to protect yourself against patents, spending some
time, effort and/or money to make sure that your local library has
good reference and historical works is probably the best way to go.

At least, if you are concerned about USA patents. I have no background
nor experience with other jurisdictions.

I hope this helps.

Have a nice day.

-- 
Raul

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Ray Lai]

On May 31, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Mikolaj Kucharski  wrote:
> 
> Ray,
> 
>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:18:02PM +0800, Ray Lai wrote:
>> There may be patent issues:
>> http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2013/156/exFAT-Filesystem
> 
> Are you saying I should modify port to include:
> 
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM =patents
> PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP =Yes
> 
> I'm not sure, how should I modify the port after your comment.

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know what the laws are for distributing patented 
code, source or binary, paid CD-ROM or free FTP.

Ray

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Mikolaj Kucharski]

Ray,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 03:18:02PM +0800, Ray Lai wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Mikolaj Kucharski 
> wrote:
> > New port of fuse-exfat, quote form DESCR:
> > >  fuse-exfat aims to provide a full-featured exFAT file system
> > >  implementaiton for Unix-like systems as a FUSE module.
> > 
> > Tested on SDXC card with exFAT. Seems to work, both read and write.
> 
> There may be patent issues:
> http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2013/156/exFAT-Filesystem

Are you saying I should modify port to include:

PERMIT_PACKAGE_CDROM =  patents
PERMIT_PACKAGE_FTP =Yes

I'm not sure, how should I modify the port after your comment.

-- 
best regards
q#

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Ray Lai]

> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:28 AM, Mikolaj Kucharski  
> wrote:
> New port of fuse-exfat, quote form DESCR:
>> fuse-exfat aims to provide a full-featured exFAT file system
>> implementaiton for Unix-like systems as a FUSE module.
> Tested on SDXC card with exFAT. Seems to work, both read and write.

There may be patent issues:
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Issues/2013/156/exFAT-Filesystem

Re: NEW sysutils/fuse-exfat 1.2.3 port

[Mikolaj Kucharski]

Sorry, for unrelated distfile inside the port tarball.

-- 
best regards
q#