Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Mar 2009 08:28 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source The whole FAT licensing saga between Microsoft and TomTom just got a whole lot more complicated. Microsoft sued TomTom because the satnav maker had not licensed FAT from Microsoft, even though several others have. This left TomTom in a difficult position: not license it, and face legal penalties - license it, and violate the GPL. The second part, however, is up for debate now: the terms under which Microsoft licenses FAT may not violate the GPL at all. Near-instant update: On Slashdot, Bruce Perens and Jeremy Allison have explained that the FAT terms are still a GPL violation. Allison accidentally emailed the journalist who wrote this story with the wrong information.
Permalink for comment 353197
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: FAT patents are a joke
by xylifyx on Sat 14th Mar 2009 21:42 UTC in reply to "RE: FAT patents are a joke"
Member since:

If that is the case, Tomcat could move the patented parts into userspace where it would be in closed source code.

As far as I understand the patent, it is the seamless shortname + longname lookup that is patented, which means that the userspace solution doesn't require royalties at all.

Reply Parent Score: 1