Re: Replacing VFAT as filesystem on removeable media

[Mark Williamson]

On Tuesday 31 March 2009 16:21:37 Xavier Bestel wrote:
> I'm speaking out of my ass here, but seeing how Microsoft managed to
> sneak some patents into something as trivial as FAT, I'm pretty sure MTP
> is a hell of a minefield.

That did occur to me too but I was somewhat hopeful that perhaps this would be 
mitigated by the (eventual?) adoption as a usb.org standard.

The spec and an adopters' legal agreement around it is here:
http://www.usb.org/developers/devclass_docs/MTP_1.0.zip

I scanned the agreement and it didn't look like it was obviously evil but I'm 
not really qualified to make that judgement ;-)  It had some promising words in 
it like "zero royalty" but I would be much happier if someone with legal 
knowhow (and preferably experience of the usb.org standards procedures) 
decoded it for me / us!

Assuming the spec is legally "safe" to implement, I would have thought it 
would be generally beneficial for device manufacturers to support both 
"initiator" and "responder" endpoints under Linux.

Cheers,
Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/