Fat File System Licensing?

[Etinin]

Just use EXT3 for the recovery part. It shouldn't be hard to create an image of the SD card with the proper recovery files for the Pandora and create something like dd for windows.

 

[BackAssward]

1. it won't be pandora only as per any pc that can read those file systems will see them.
2. people here splurged for a $300+ i think they would have the cash to spare for more sd cards so they don't have to use one in multiple devices.
3. it's the only way your going to get around the fat licensing like it or not.

1. Many windows OS will not read/write ext2/3 and many of the other file systems listed.
2. You think is is reasonable to buy $10-15-20+ dollar SD cards as duplicates for one device when people have other devices that use them?
3. If it is only $.25 per device, that makes a lot more sense than expecting everyone to double their SD card count. Never mind that the brick recovery mode probably uses FAT (and should).

Why make a non standard SD format if it is only 25 cents? That`s $1000 for the 4000 units. Just slightly more than one CNC case, and 1/20 the cost for designing the nubs (never mind the nub manufacturing costs).

(of course, I am taking the 25 cents cost from this thread, but unless you have more info on cost, you`re arguments aren`t really sensible)

Hell, can they even use the SD logo, if the SD cards required don`t follow SD standards (for file system)?

 

[truekaiser]

1. xp and vista can run ext2/3 search google for 'ext3 windows driver'

2. yes. besides if you have one of the devices listed in the first place chances are you have more then one sd card anyway.

3. the standards are for the hardware level access, the file system is higher then that.

 

[lulzfish]

I like ext2 a lot [ext3 is probably not good for flash, and not needed on a battery-powered device], but my camera and MP3 player use FAT, and I don't want to take any extra steps to avoid MS' patent bullocks.

 

[Bronek]

1. it won"t be pandora only as per any pc that can read those file systems will see them.
2. people here splurged for a $300+ i think they would have the cash to spare for more sd cards so they don"t have to use one in multiple devices.
3. it"s the only way your going to get around the fat licensing like it or not.

1. I want to use Pandora to display pictures taken on my camera. Or swapping .mp3 and videos with a PMP; or playing movies recorded on a camcorder. Should I buy new devices which support ext3 on SD (assuming such things exist at all?) and forget about reading cards written by other people"s gadgets?

2. 3. Sure, make everyone pay more for SD cards, because that"s the only way "around the fat licensing". Would you care to explain why going "around the fat licensing" is needed at all, if license can be had for a tiny fraction of cost of a single SD card (assuming it"s needed at all, in specific situation - I rarely, if ever, see SD card with long filenames)?

And I do not want to hear arguments about "bad software patents" "good open source", because courts won"t hear them either. Ideology does not count as an argument in the court of law, at least not in a law abiding country. And courts have the power to shut the whole venture down.

Above questions are only rhetorical, I am not really interested in your answers, sorry. This reminds why I did not want to discuss or interfere in the decision made by devs. Oh well, I just shut up.

 

[Alec]

I don't really understand all the fuss about having funny-linux-filesystem-formatted sdcards.

I'm personally planning to buy a decently-large SDcard and insert it "permanently" into my console. It's going to contain Pandora files, and if I needed to transfer any files on/off of it there's always bluetooth and wireless. Just start up Samba and your Pandora will magically appear in your windows Network Places.

 

[Lorkile]

truekaiser

If they have to install a driver then for people like me that's as good as not being able to do it. I can't install files on half the computers I use, and the convenience of not buying more SD cards or switch to a different file system is part of my interest in the Pandora since I intend on switching my SD card between my camera and Pandora so I don't need to use a PC or USB just to swap images/videos.

The more I read your arguments the less it seems you understand other people's predicaments and claim your willing to go out of your way just to support your point instead of conceding that many will be better off maintaining the FAT file system.

 

[Chip]

I don't really understand all the fuss about having funny-linux-filesystem-formatted sdcards.

I'm personally planning to buy a decently-large SDcard and insert it "permanently" into my console.
While that may work fine for you, it will not work well for everybody.

Forcing people to use a non-standard format just because it is "open" is no better than forcing people to use a non-open format just because it is "standard". Ideally, everybody should have a choice of what FS they want to use.

We are aware of the issue and we'll let you know what we decide to do about it.

 

[WizardStan]

The way I see it, there are three solutions to the FAT licensing "problem"
1) Just license it! It's 25 cents per unit. At worst they'll claim that we have two units because we have 2 SD card slots (I don't honestly see that happening) but even then it's only 50 cents per unit.
2) Don't use VFAT. Just use regular FAT. All filenames are reduced to their 8.3, ALL UPPER CASE, short names. New files are stuck with the 8.3 limit. The patents only apply to the long file name hacks, so no need for a license here. Not quite as clean as (1), but it's free and functional.
3) Use EXT3, forcing Windows users to install 3rd party drivers and completely abandoning any thoughts of compatibility with other cameras and MP3 players.

The only other problem with (1) is the question of how long it takes to get a license. If MS drags their heels and it takes months to get the paper work done, they can always fall back on (2) until such time as the license comes through and they release a firmware update.

 

[truekaiser]

I don't really understand all the fuss about having funny-linux-filesystem-formatted sdcards.

It's called not getting sued out of existence by the lawyers from redmond washington representing microsoft. You can of course do what you want but if this project was smart they should remove fat & fat32 support while recomending somthing similar to my sujestions to avoid such a fate, by doing so they have a good defence of saying 'see it was the user who infringed on your patent not us'

The facts though stand where they are. After years of microsoft careing less about linux and other os's using the fat & fat32 filesystems they choose to go after tomtom, tomtom then did the idiotic thing and legitimized their claim even though they forfited it by not enforcing it from the start opening the door for them to go after every tom and harry distrobution that has fat & fat32 support enabled by default. Along with legitimizing their propaganda that linux stole intelectual property from them.

 

[Chip]

if this project was smart they should remove fat & fat32 support while recomending somthing similar to my sujestions to avoid such a fate, by doing so they have a good defence of saying 'see it was the user who infringed on your patent not us'
That solves the FAT problem, but what about the 40ish other patents MS claims the Linux kernel violates? (ref: money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867 ) This time they decided to sue over the FAT file system, but who knows what they'll pretend to own next time they get a hard on for a nuisance lawsuit.

Like all patent trolls, MS is a bully and just wants to beat up smaller kids for their lunch money. The thing is, only really stupid bullies bother to beat up the poor kid, because he doesn't have any lunch money to take. All we've got is half a soggy PB&J sandwich and an apple that looks like it fell down some stairs.

 

[neko]

Microsoft tried to enforce this bogus patent in Germany... and lost.
CODE
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS9467496750.html

They could sue in the US, but I don't think they're that stupid. All it would achieve is keeping the Pandora out of the US, and invite the wrath of the members of Open Invention Network and Linux Defenders, which have stated that they will retaliate against Microsoft if they ever do this.

SFLC statement:
CODE
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/mar/30/settled-not-over-yet/

 

[sam fisher]

Lmao, Linux Defenders . I envision nerds in tights and superhero costumes when I read that name.

 

[neko]

LOL. It's actually a serious organization... www.linuxdefenders.org

 

[aq21]

Did the people who suggest paying MS ever read the license that the FAT code OP plan to distribute? The code is under GPL v2, and that means that means that if it is patent encumbered, OP need to either pay MS for the right to use this code anywhere (not only on devices sold by OP), or they are not allowed to distirbute this code at all. (See section 7 of the terms and conditions.)

This means that paying MS .25$ per device is not an option.

 

[Bronek]

Did the people who suggest paying MS ever read the license that the FAT code OP plan to distribute? The code is under GPL v2, and that means that means that if it is patent encumbered, ...

well, I suppose that means that Pandora may stick to msdos filesystem (modules fat.o + msdos.o), which as I understand does not support long filenames. Only long filenames extension for FAT seem to have been patented (which puts vfat.o module in uncomfortable position you described above).

I certainly won"t complain if devs chose this way - FAT support is mostly going to be used for compatibility with other devices, thus does not have to be fully functional. I also won"t complain if I have to use filesystem not compatible with other devices, like ext2/ext3/jffs2/yaffs2 etc. when I need long filenames (by "other devices" I do not mean PC).

EDIT: quotes, added names of alternative filesystems

 

[BackAssward]

Like all patent trolls, MS is a bully and just wants to beat up smaller kids for their lunch money. The thing is, only really stupid bullies bother to beat up the poor kid, because he doesn't have any lunch money to take. All we've got is half a soggy PB&J sandwich and an apple that looks like it fell down some stairs.

The last sentence is comedy gold, I`ll have to remember it. Also, it`s clear that truekaiser has no ability to put himself in other people`s place to understand their concerns. I thought we all articulated them well enough, but into deaf ears (or a stubborn mind).

 

[lingenfr]

I'm comfortable with Chip' s earlier post that they are looking at. It is an issue for me as I don't want to be hobbled with not being able to use an SD from my camera, etc. I don't mind having ext2/3 formated SD's for everyday use. I am going to take a look at my cameras, etc. to see if lack of LFN would be a problem. The option of distributing it without support and then leaving it to the community to post instructions for full support would be OK with me, but if a satisfactory licensing agreement at a reasonable price could be worked, that would be best IMHO. Standing by for news.

 

[Prometheus]

I was going to leave well alone here, but I felt compelled to post. My apologies.

Please don't think I'm going against what's been said, here - I am more than satisfied with the answer that it is being looked into, and I'm sure that the right approach will be found. I have no issue with that.

That said, am I the only one who would be uncomfortable about the prospect of having any of my money (yes, even "only" 25 US cents ) go to Microsoft from the proceeds of a product that has nothing to do with them? I'd rather like to keep my soggy half-a-sandwich, you know? :lol:

EDIT: To add to that, I am inclined to agree with the FAT with short filenames approach, just to make that clear - I'm not saying don't support it at all, by any means. I fully understand the benefits of supporting it.

 

[lulzfish]

I'm extremely uncomfortable with that, even for 25 cents.
It's 25 cents they get, for no effort, just because the government recognized them as doing something first.
25 cents of money spents on something that has no cost for copying, that other people have implemented on their own.

I like just using the regular FAT, without the long filenames, and then accidentally a driver appears on mine that supports it... dunno how that happened.

Or we could stand up and tell MS the truth: That they're stupid and we're not paying for something we already support just fine on our own. But once anything vaguely legal is involved, OP is fucked.

Aren't software patents and the US 'justice' system beautiful?