Fedora 42 On 64-bit ARM Might Make It Seamless To Run x86/x86_64 Programs

[Quackdoc]

How come Fedora's lawyers didn't question the legal risks involved?

why would there be legal risks?

[edxposed]

why would there be legal risks?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587

[Quackdoc]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587

Seems a lot like
"You can't do this"
"why not"
"because I said so"
"well im just gonna go ahead and do it anyways"
"ill sue you"
"no you wont"
*crickets*

[dralley]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14523587

That was 7 years ago, the patents are expiring shortly and also Intel doesn't have a lot of extra money to be fucking around on lawsuits.

[chithanh]

How come Fedora's lawyers didn't question the legal risks involved?

Fedora already includes several emulators and they are under a free and open source license. This is no different from Qemu from a legal standpoint.

why would there be legal risks?

Fedora also includes several crypto libraries already which do what WolfSSL does, but still WolfSSL was removed from Fedora until cleared by legal review. So what is the difference?

That was 7 years ago, the patents are expiring shortly and also Intel doesn't have a lot of extra money to be fucking around on lawsuits.

I don't think this is how it works. SCO was bankrupt or nearly bankrupt for most of the time during the SCO v IBM lawsuit. In fact if business is bad then companies tend to become more litigious in my impression.

And there is no doubt, when Intel created new instruction sets, they also patented methods to efficiently emulate them on other architectures. I don't know anyone who contests this.

Also most of the crypto patents, especially the notorious Point Compression patent (US patent 6141420) expired years ago. And it is highly unlikely that any were applicable at all.

[Quackdoc]

Fedora also includes several crypto libraries already which do what WolfSSL does, but still WolfSSL was removed from Fedora until cleared by legal review. So what is the difference?

is x86 emulation a crypto library? I know it has some crypto stuff self contained inside of it's self, but I don't know if that would be considered a crypto library via their packaging guidelines.

[chithanh]

Quackdoc
x86 emulation is not a crypto library, but the argument was:

Fedora already includes several emulators and they are under a free and open source license. This is no different from Qemu from a legal standpoint.

so paraphrased, if QEMU is ok then all other software with the same function is also ok.

I however pointed out that this is not how WolfSSL was treated in Fedora (and this is what edxposed presumably wanted to say).

[AkulaMD]

This is great. Not many people want to mess around with installing FEX on their distro.

Looking forward for other major distros to have it too.

[ssokolow]

Quackdoc
x86 emulation is not a crypto library, but the argument was:

so paraphrased, if QEMU is ok then all other software with the same function is also ok.

I however pointed out that this is not how WolfSSL was treated in Fedora (and this is what edxposed presumably wanted to say).

I believe the situation with Fedora is "because of how crypto is considered a weapons technology for the purpose of export controls, wolfSSL has to go through the official process for thoroughly checking that it either doesn't do anything more than OpenSSL or that anything more that it does do is on the list of OK things to export".

[discordian]

kinda funny that in the future aarch64 will be the arch that "runs everything", which was the longest time the argument for x86