From what I can tell, the diagrams are for TP's mfs implementation and
they're in TP's claims. If so, they don't say anything about RH's
claims.
And mount, or mount.mfs, may be fairly trivial
but it's also fairly crucial: without that program there's no way for a user (or
a startup script) to mount the filesystem. It sounds like, rather than write
their own trivial program, TP just copied-and-pasted the existing mount
program's code and edited it to pass the correct arguments to the mount() call.
And I'll bet it's not just a "these trivial stretches of code are very similar",
but "here we see the exact same code copied verbatim, right down to the exact
same string literals including ones that don't make sense and wouldn't be there
if the code had merely used RH's for reference". For instance, RH copyright
notices included in TP's code, which wouldn't happen unless RH's code were
copied. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|