Re: [patch] QNX-style scheduling for Linux 2.0

Adam McKee (amckee@poboxes.com)
Sun, 27 Jul 1997 21:08:43 -0600 (CST)

Sure, it's a descriptive name and I like it except that someone pointed
out that there could be some legal troubles... If someone who knows about
these matters could assure me that there is no legal problem with calling
it "QNX-style", I would just as soon keep this name.

By the way, v1.01 of the patch is on Linux HQ (http://www.linuxhq.com)

-- Adam

On 27 Jul 1997, david parsons wrote:

> In article <linux.kernel.Pine.LNX.3.95.970727135110.8947A-100000@titan.acua.org>,
> Adam McKee <amckee@poboxes.com> wrote:
> >I must admit I did not even think of this as a potential problem. I agree
> >a name change is a good idea.
>
> Why? Unless there's a commonly accepted name for that style of
> scheduling, calling it `QNX-style' is the most descriptive title
> you can give it.
>
>
> ____
> david parsons \bi/ Too many lawyers.
> \/
>