Samsung proprietary code violation #5

Closed
AndreiLux opened this Issue Jul 9, 2013 · 72 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@AndreiLux

This code was originally under a Samsung proprietary license, all you've done is strip all traces of that license and threw a GPL tag on it.

I suggest removing everything.

@richarson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@richarson

richarson Jul 15, 2013

Please, clarify the licensing situation.

Thanks.

Please, clarify the licensing situation.

Thanks.

@rxrz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@rxrz

rxrz Jul 20, 2013

Collaborator

This code was originally under a Samsung proprietary license
Wrong.
exfat_version.h:/* - 2012.04.02 : P1 : Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary */

this is version p2. I could've technically stripped those comments and changed the version number to /* - 2012.02.10 : Release Version 1.1.0 */ But I didn't. Originally, it was either public domain or GPL.
Nobody would've ever found out by the code alone, which version this actually is.

all you've done is strip all traces of that license and threw a GPL tag on it.
All I've done is given the community of open source developers and linux/android users a way to finally share data between all major OS's without any excessive impact on the performance. Basically, I did microsoft's job, they even owe me money for the time I've spent fixing the code to work on modern kernels and "throwing the GPL tag on it". They also owe me $2 of the fee I paid unknowingly, when bought an SDXC card last year.
They also did not release any specs for this updated 30-year-old fs; it's called monopoly and that's what's illegal.

I suggest removing everything.
Andrei, who are you to suggest anything? Are you Samsung? Did you write this code? Did you develop exfat? No. Go suggest somewhere else please.

Please, clarify the licensing situation.
It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung, Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a signed paper from your parents on whether you can or can not use it? I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. You got the code, now decide what to do with it, it's up to you. There's always exfat-fuse if you like living in a cage. You also could complete the driver written by Ogawa, using this source code, and then suggest including that driver into the kernel tree and get very famous.

Samsung does not care about this module, they will not lose any money because of this. If they will ask github to take down this repo, it will only impact their image, to the crowd of xda developers and mature linux users.

I've posted this code under the "GPL tag" to let the techy websites spread the word about the driver, rather than treating it as a leak. I repeat: it was publicly available on github, and probably still is.
As the final part of this project, I planned to bring the "Samsung Proprietary" license back, but honestly, who cares? The code has been cloned/forked so many times, that it will never get lost. My goal was to fix the wrong, not to do wrong. And it came out to be a success, we've now got a more powerful OS on our hands.

P.S.
Because of the linux kernel being licensed under GPL, and Samsung using that kernel in their android devices along with this driver, I probably could've legally gotten this source code by the first request to them. I believe that's how it came from Samsung to github, originally. You could try doing that with other linux-based proprietary software.

Love you all, kinda...

-rxrz

Collaborator

rxrz commented Jul 20, 2013

This code was originally under a Samsung proprietary license
Wrong.
exfat_version.h:/* - 2012.04.02 : P1 : Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary */

this is version p2. I could've technically stripped those comments and changed the version number to /* - 2012.02.10 : Release Version 1.1.0 */ But I didn't. Originally, it was either public domain or GPL.
Nobody would've ever found out by the code alone, which version this actually is.

all you've done is strip all traces of that license and threw a GPL tag on it.
All I've done is given the community of open source developers and linux/android users a way to finally share data between all major OS's without any excessive impact on the performance. Basically, I did microsoft's job, they even owe me money for the time I've spent fixing the code to work on modern kernels and "throwing the GPL tag on it". They also owe me $2 of the fee I paid unknowingly, when bought an SDXC card last year.
They also did not release any specs for this updated 30-year-old fs; it's called monopoly and that's what's illegal.

I suggest removing everything.
Andrei, who are you to suggest anything? Are you Samsung? Did you write this code? Did you develop exfat? No. Go suggest somewhere else please.

Please, clarify the licensing situation.
It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung, Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a signed paper from your parents on whether you can or can not use it? I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. You got the code, now decide what to do with it, it's up to you. There's always exfat-fuse if you like living in a cage. You also could complete the driver written by Ogawa, using this source code, and then suggest including that driver into the kernel tree and get very famous.

Samsung does not care about this module, they will not lose any money because of this. If they will ask github to take down this repo, it will only impact their image, to the crowd of xda developers and mature linux users.

I've posted this code under the "GPL tag" to let the techy websites spread the word about the driver, rather than treating it as a leak. I repeat: it was publicly available on github, and probably still is.
As the final part of this project, I planned to bring the "Samsung Proprietary" license back, but honestly, who cares? The code has been cloned/forked so many times, that it will never get lost. My goal was to fix the wrong, not to do wrong. And it came out to be a success, we've now got a more powerful OS on our hands.

P.S.
Because of the linux kernel being licensed under GPL, and Samsung using that kernel in their android devices along with this driver, I probably could've legally gotten this source code by the first request to them. I believe that's how it came from Samsung to github, originally. You could try doing that with other linux-based proprietary software.

Love you all, kinda...

-rxrz

@rxrz rxrz closed this Jul 20, 2013

@rxrz rxrz reopened this Jul 20, 2013

@rxrz rxrz closed this Jul 20, 2013

@RalphCorderoy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@RalphCorderoy

RalphCorderoy Jul 22, 2013

Issue raised on gpl-violations's legal mailing list. http://www.mail-archive.com/legal@lists.gpl-violations.org/msg00087.html

Issue raised on gpl-violations's legal mailing list. http://www.mail-archive.com/legal@lists.gpl-violations.org/msg00087.html

@richarson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@richarson

richarson Jul 22, 2013

You yourself said "It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung, Inc."
So it's not GPL and you CAN'T redistribute it without permission.

Tha fact that what Microsoft or Samsung do is illegal doesn't give you the right to do something illegal also.

Please, don't pollute our free systems with propietary code.

You yourself said "It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung, Inc."
So it's not GPL and you CAN'T redistribute it without permission.

Tha fact that what Microsoft or Samsung do is illegal doesn't give you the right to do something illegal also.

Please, don't pollute our free systems with propietary code.

@richarson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@richarson

richarson Jul 22, 2013

Look, I couldn't care less what happens to this code, since I don't have any use for it, but stop misleading people into thinking that this is a free sofware driver because it is not. The fact that you "relicensed" it under the GPL means nothing because you're not the owner of the code.

If you really care about the people who use this driver, you should at least put a big, clear warning that they might get into legal trouble for using it. If they want, they can proceed under their onw risk, but they would be warned.

Look, I couldn't care less what happens to this code, since I don't have any use for it, but stop misleading people into thinking that this is a free sofware driver because it is not. The fact that you "relicensed" it under the GPL means nothing because you're not the owner of the code.

If you really care about the people who use this driver, you should at least put a big, clear warning that they might get into legal trouble for using it. If they want, they can proceed under their onw risk, but they would be warned.

@rxrz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@rxrz

rxrz Jul 23, 2013

Collaborator

ralph: OH NO, OMG!!! should I now watch out for black helicopters and expect the SWAT team to rush into my house?

Richardson:
Please. don't tell me what I can and can't do. It is whatever I want it to be, this is my repo after all.
I think you're from the past, or something... I did redistribute it, it has already happened. And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl.
I'm not polluting anything, you're the one who's polluting this thread. If you don't like something -- walk away, that simple. And honestly, using your submissive views, I'm not sure you could call anything "free".
We interpret that word different, me and you.

Tha fact that what Microsoft or Samsung do is illegal doesn't give you the right to do something illegal also.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov

It seems like my job's done here. I brought the original license back, hope y'all stop crying now.
Not sure if I'll be maintaining this repo in the near future, make sure to check out the forks for patches/improvements. Just began working on one more fun project to release, would rather put my time in something else, not this file system.

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. -Benjamin Franklin

Collaborator

rxrz commented Jul 23, 2013

ralph: OH NO, OMG!!! should I now watch out for black helicopters and expect the SWAT team to rush into my house?

Richardson:
Please. don't tell me what I can and can't do. It is whatever I want it to be, this is my repo after all.
I think you're from the past, or something... I did redistribute it, it has already happened. And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl.
I'm not polluting anything, you're the one who's polluting this thread. If you don't like something -- walk away, that simple. And honestly, using your submissive views, I'm not sure you could call anything "free".
We interpret that word different, me and you.

Tha fact that what Microsoft or Samsung do is illegal doesn't give you the right to do something illegal also.
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." - Isaac Asimov

It seems like my job's done here. I brought the original license back, hope y'all stop crying now.
Not sure if I'll be maintaining this repo in the near future, make sure to check out the forks for patches/improvements. Just began working on one more fun project to release, would rather put my time in something else, not this file system.

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. -Benjamin Franklin

@Lagg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Lagg

Lagg Jul 23, 2013

Not sure if I'll be maintaining this repo in the near future, make sure to check out the forks for patches/improvements.

Due to github's policy you probably won't. I imagine it'll be taken down if there is a request from either company.

That said, this is not exactly the perfect way of getting proper compatibility with microsoft's crap. But I find it hard to fault you for your cavalier attitude towards it. I mean, I do like copyright when used appropriately and in a manner that is freedom encouraging (e.g. my use of ISCL). So please don't take what I'm about to say as "DOWN WITH COPYRIGHT!". But honestly, whether or not this is illegal according to US law or whichever other place reinforces patents doesn't mean much.

Forgive me for the analogy that might look like it's taking advantage of a recent event, but it's the only one I can think of at the moment. Snowden's actions were also "illegal", but does it make what he did any less admirable? No. Naturally this is never going to be accepted into the upstream kernel and taints it. But I really don't think this was @rxrz's goal in the first place.

On one hand changing licenses without author permission pisses me off, on the other hand both of the relevant companies deserve no less.

P.S.

Those of you forking may want to make sure you also do a clone to a local machine, when github removes the repo they're likely going to remove the forked repos as well.

Lagg commented Jul 23, 2013

Not sure if I'll be maintaining this repo in the near future, make sure to check out the forks for patches/improvements.

Due to github's policy you probably won't. I imagine it'll be taken down if there is a request from either company.

That said, this is not exactly the perfect way of getting proper compatibility with microsoft's crap. But I find it hard to fault you for your cavalier attitude towards it. I mean, I do like copyright when used appropriately and in a manner that is freedom encouraging (e.g. my use of ISCL). So please don't take what I'm about to say as "DOWN WITH COPYRIGHT!". But honestly, whether or not this is illegal according to US law or whichever other place reinforces patents doesn't mean much.

Forgive me for the analogy that might look like it's taking advantage of a recent event, but it's the only one I can think of at the moment. Snowden's actions were also "illegal", but does it make what he did any less admirable? No. Naturally this is never going to be accepted into the upstream kernel and taints it. But I really don't think this was @rxrz's goal in the first place.

On one hand changing licenses without author permission pisses me off, on the other hand both of the relevant companies deserve no less.

P.S.

Those of you forking may want to make sure you also do a clone to a local machine, when github removes the repo they're likely going to remove the forked repos as well.

@mcirsta

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mcirsta

mcirsta Jul 23, 2013

You can use Github's zip feature, I just did do that and downloaded a copy to my local PC and to my Gdrive.
I think development can and should continue on Github for a while at least and we'll see. I for one am planning on using this code an taking advantage of it regardless of the licensing issues. If you sit around and listen to MS, the code that's already in the kernel regarding FAT32 has licensing issues so give me a break.

mcirsta commented Jul 23, 2013

You can use Github's zip feature, I just did do that and downloaded a copy to my local PC and to my Gdrive.
I think development can and should continue on Github for a while at least and we'll see. I for one am planning on using this code an taking advantage of it regardless of the licensing issues. If you sit around and listen to MS, the code that's already in the kernel regarding FAT32 has licensing issues so give me a break.

@benpicco

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@benpicco

benpicco Jul 23, 2013

Contributor

I don't understand how this can be a GPL violation, Samsung published/distributed it as part of the Linux kernel, so kernel GPL automatically 'infects' this code. What's the issue?

Contributor

benpicco commented Jul 23, 2013

I don't understand how this can be a GPL violation, Samsung published/distributed it as part of the Linux kernel, so kernel GPL automatically 'infects' this code. What's the issue?

@mcirsta

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@mcirsta

mcirsta Jul 23, 2013

Oh I'm so sick and tired of license purists and license debates. The code was in there with the kernel and it therefore GPL even if Samsung labeled it as such or not.
If Samsung has a problem with this being GPL they should say so if they keep quiet it means they're OK with it and that's that.
Distributing this code is another matter though and that could prove tricky because of patent concerns with MS.
In the end I don't care much, we have the code and that's what counts. I wish we has something similar for NTFS too.

mcirsta commented Jul 23, 2013

Oh I'm so sick and tired of license purists and license debates. The code was in there with the kernel and it therefore GPL even if Samsung labeled it as such or not.
If Samsung has a problem with this being GPL they should say so if they keep quiet it means they're OK with it and that's that.
Distributing this code is another matter though and that could prove tricky because of patent concerns with MS.
In the end I don't care much, we have the code and that's what counts. I wish we has something similar for NTFS too.

@luigino

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@luigino

luigino Jul 23, 2013

I don't understand if these people are trolls or actually that naive.

Any exfat-fuse developer looking at it could taint any future commit.
Or perhaps that's the purpose?

luigino commented Jul 23, 2013

I don't understand if these people are trolls or actually that naive.

Any exfat-fuse developer looking at it could taint any future commit.
Or perhaps that's the purpose?

@regularfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@regularfry

regularfry Jul 23, 2013

Whether or not Samsung's original driver should have been GPL-licensed is an open question. You can't tell that it should be just from the fact it's a kernel module: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html

You also can't just point to a piece of code and retroactively declare it to be distributable under the GPL without the copyright owner's agreement. Even if the GPL applies, there's more than one way for them to be in compliance.

Whether or not Samsung's original driver should have been GPL-licensed is an open question. You can't tell that it should be just from the fact it's a kernel module: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html

You also can't just point to a piece of code and retroactively declare it to be distributable under the GPL without the copyright owner's agreement. Even if the GPL applies, there's more than one way for them to be in compliance.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@rxrz You are cool bro. Always ignore the licence if you want.
Thats what guys at KinG do.
"Gonna download you repo up, pack it, and store it in the far away folder, together with similar stuff"

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@rxrz You are cool bro. Always ignore the licence if you want.
Thats what guys at KinG do.
"Gonna download you repo up, pack it, and store it in the far away folder, together with similar stuff"

@lysol

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@lysol

lysol Jul 23, 2013

This thread is the "No copyright intended" of Github.

lysol commented Jul 23, 2013

This thread is the "No copyright intended" of Github.

@magnusnordlander

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@magnusnordlander

magnusnordlander Jul 23, 2013

@n1rvana That's not how the GPL works. In a sense it does infect any code that get's close to it, but it is by no means automatic. If Samsung distributed this module in violation of the GPL (though I'm not saying they were), the only legal recourse is through legal action against them.

Under no circumstance does any code automatically become GPL licensed, as that is impossible. What can happen is that a vendor breaches the contract of the GPL, by not licensing their derived work under the GPL. That would then open the vendor up to legal action, which could result in the vendor relicensing the work (as one of many possible outcomes).

As for the FSF's position on IP and copyright, I obviously can't speak for them, but from what I've heard they hold no such opinion. The GPL relies heavily on copyright law to work, and without copyright law they'd have no recourse against people who take GPL licensed code and use it in proprietary software.

@n1rvana That's not how the GPL works. In a sense it does infect any code that get's close to it, but it is by no means automatic. If Samsung distributed this module in violation of the GPL (though I'm not saying they were), the only legal recourse is through legal action against them.

Under no circumstance does any code automatically become GPL licensed, as that is impossible. What can happen is that a vendor breaches the contract of the GPL, by not licensing their derived work under the GPL. That would then open the vendor up to legal action, which could result in the vendor relicensing the work (as one of many possible outcomes).

As for the FSF's position on IP and copyright, I obviously can't speak for them, but from what I've heard they hold no such opinion. The GPL relies heavily on copyright law to work, and without copyright law they'd have no recourse against people who take GPL licensed code and use it in proprietary software.

@smirnov

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@smirnov

smirnov Jul 23, 2013

n1rvana you are one big troll, coming here. Selling GPL-ed code is totally OK by Stallman, as long as you provide your customers with sources and freedom to modify them and do as they please with them.
Apache and MIT are not considered less free. They are considered less protective of software users' rights to modify the source and see what's inside.
You can't use proprietary code if you don't pay up to get the sources. You can't use GPLed code unless you will provide all the users of your end product with sources to it.
While it is still a big question whether this software can be distributed under GPL or not - your statement has nothing to do with the discussion.

smirnov commented Jul 23, 2013

n1rvana you are one big troll, coming here. Selling GPL-ed code is totally OK by Stallman, as long as you provide your customers with sources and freedom to modify them and do as they please with them.
Apache and MIT are not considered less free. They are considered less protective of software users' rights to modify the source and see what's inside.
You can't use proprietary code if you don't pay up to get the sources. You can't use GPLed code unless you will provide all the users of your end product with sources to it.
While it is still a big question whether this software can be distributed under GPL or not - your statement has nothing to do with the discussion.

@clopez

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@clopez

clopez Jul 23, 2013

younger devs today are about POSS - Post open source software. fuck the license and governance, just commit to github.

-- James Governor, Redmonk (@monkchips) September 17, 2012

clopez commented Jul 23, 2013

younger devs today are about POSS - Post open source software. fuck the license and governance, just commit to github.

-- James Governor, Redmonk (@monkchips) September 17, 2012

@wcummings

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@wcummings

wcummings Jul 23, 2013

Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

Hoarders can get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.

When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll kick out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.

Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

Hoarders can get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.

When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll kick out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.

Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

Disassemble it, Pack it, Share it.
No one cares about the licence.
Everyone only cares if it works.

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

Disassemble it, Pack it, Share it.
No one cares about the licence.
Everyone only cares if it works.

@Rimhollow

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Rimhollow

Rimhollow Jul 23, 2013

What amuses me is why you bothered putting the GPL on the thing when you're clearly not concerned with licenses of any sort. I honestly think you'd have gotten less flak if you'd put "Haxxored by rxrz, greets to Phrozen Crew, FairLight, Razor 1911" instead.

What amuses me is why you bothered putting the GPL on the thing when you're clearly not concerned with licenses of any sort. I honestly think you'd have gotten less flak if you'd put "Haxxored by rxrz, greets to Phrozen Crew, FairLight, Razor 1911" instead.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@rmholl0 To allow not very concerned GPL fags to use it! I wonder why not WTFPL then?

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@rmholl0 To allow not very concerned GPL fags to use it! I wonder why not WTFPL then?

@richarson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@richarson

richarson Jul 23, 2013

Actually, I do care about the license. I would love if Samsung or some other company/person releases a GPL exFAT driver (even if I never use it).

But this is not the case, this is a violation of copyright (no matter how many quotes this "developer" uses to justify his/her actions).

Is Samsung wrong about this code? Probably, but leaking and releasing this code won't do any good. If Samsung is actually violating the GPL (and I'm not sure about it, see what nVidia do eith their binary driver + GPL'ed shim/wrapper/whatever) then you should report it to gpl-violations.org or the FSF or someone who can do something about it.

You know, two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, as I said, I have no interest in this code, and even less interested in being insulted by a troll, so good life!

Actually, I do care about the license. I would love if Samsung or some other company/person releases a GPL exFAT driver (even if I never use it).

But this is not the case, this is a violation of copyright (no matter how many quotes this "developer" uses to justify his/her actions).

Is Samsung wrong about this code? Probably, but leaking and releasing this code won't do any good. If Samsung is actually violating the GPL (and I'm not sure about it, see what nVidia do eith their binary driver + GPL'ed shim/wrapper/whatever) then you should report it to gpl-violations.org or the FSF or someone who can do something about it.

You know, two wrongs don't make a right.

Anyway, as I said, I have no interest in this code, and even less interested in being insulted by a troll, so good life!

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@richarson
Leaking and releasing code regardless of the licence helps billions of licence ignoring people everyday.
If you are concerned about the licence, you should go away and let FSF and gpl-violations work here.

You want this code? Use it. You dont want this code? Dont use it.
Its not the matter of the licence. Its the matter of "There is a download button".

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@richarson
Leaking and releasing code regardless of the licence helps billions of licence ignoring people everyday.
If you are concerned about the licence, you should go away and let FSF and gpl-violations work here.

You want this code? Use it. You dont want this code? Dont use it.
Its not the matter of the licence. Its the matter of "There is a download button".

@benpicco

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@benpicco

benpicco Jul 23, 2013

Contributor

This forum post hints that the driver was likely based on the in-kernel GPL fat driver to begin with…

Contributor

benpicco commented Jul 23, 2013

This forum post hints that the driver was likely based on the in-kernel GPL fat driver to begin with…

@orclev

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@orclev

orclev Jul 23, 2013

@zetaneta
The issue is more of the re-licensing.

Lets say I'm working on some product for my company and I need an exFAT driver. My options (so far as my browsing of this comment thread has led me to believe) are to use either the GPLed FUSE library, or this library which also claims to be GPL. So, I decide to use this library and go along my way developing and selling my GPL licensed product. Next thing I know, I'm getting a nasty letter from Samsungs lawyers demanding I pay them some ridiculous sum of money to license their proprietary driver. Now, I "know" this driver I'm using is clearly licensed under GPL, says so right there in the source code, so clearly Samsung is in the wrong right? So I go to court, and then get my ass handed to me because this "GPL" code wasn't actually GPL and I've got no legs to stand on legally. Suddenly I owe Samsung a big heap of money and I'm probably looking at some seriously hefty legal fees and possibly bankruptcy.

That's why it's important to keep the license information in place. I don't care if you distribute the code, Samsung may not even care, but you don't have the right to trick someone else into violating a license and opening themselves up to legal damages just because you have a beef with how Samsung decided to license some code.

Thankfully rxrz has fixed things by changing the license notice back to what it originally was, although any of the forks out there that still have the fake GPL license on them might still lead to problems down the line.

orclev commented Jul 23, 2013

@zetaneta
The issue is more of the re-licensing.

Lets say I'm working on some product for my company and I need an exFAT driver. My options (so far as my browsing of this comment thread has led me to believe) are to use either the GPLed FUSE library, or this library which also claims to be GPL. So, I decide to use this library and go along my way developing and selling my GPL licensed product. Next thing I know, I'm getting a nasty letter from Samsungs lawyers demanding I pay them some ridiculous sum of money to license their proprietary driver. Now, I "know" this driver I'm using is clearly licensed under GPL, says so right there in the source code, so clearly Samsung is in the wrong right? So I go to court, and then get my ass handed to me because this "GPL" code wasn't actually GPL and I've got no legs to stand on legally. Suddenly I owe Samsung a big heap of money and I'm probably looking at some seriously hefty legal fees and possibly bankruptcy.

That's why it's important to keep the license information in place. I don't care if you distribute the code, Samsung may not even care, but you don't have the right to trick someone else into violating a license and opening themselves up to legal damages just because you have a beef with how Samsung decided to license some code.

Thankfully rxrz has fixed things by changing the license notice back to what it originally was, although any of the forks out there that still have the fake GPL license on them might still lead to problems down the line.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@orclev
You know SCO, and it lawsuits with linux users?
You know Wine, it contains huge copypasta of "windows code".

Well, if thats the case. Lets say, the one who released this code just dont care.
He released it under GPL.... becouse its the most common open license.
Why not to, when you dont care at all about the people who is going to use it?

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@orclev
You know SCO, and it lawsuits with linux users?
You know Wine, it contains huge copypasta of "windows code".

Well, if thats the case. Lets say, the one who released this code just dont care.
He released it under GPL.... becouse its the most common open license.
Why not to, when you dont care at all about the people who is going to use it?

@7histle

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@7histle

7histle Jul 23, 2013

Пишу в эпичном треде ололол

7histle commented Jul 23, 2013

Пишу в эпичном треде ололол

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@7histle Порошок уходи

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@7histle Порошок уходи

@f278243

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@f278243

f278243 Jul 23, 2013

I've downloaded sources.
In case it is deleted from here, I will upload it again. If not to gihub, so to abother hosting.
It is a war between copyrighters and OSS, and all measures are good here.
Copyrighers can adopt any law you can imagine through governments, so why do obey to them ?

Я скачал исходники.
Если они будут удалены отсюда, я загружу их опять. Если не на github, то на другой сайт.
Это война между копирастами и свободным софтом, и все средства здесь хороши.
Копирасты могут принять любой закон, какой только можно представить, через правительства, и зачем им вообще подчиняться?

f278243 commented Jul 23, 2013

I've downloaded sources.
In case it is deleted from here, I will upload it again. If not to gihub, so to abother hosting.
It is a war between copyrighters and OSS, and all measures are good here.
Copyrighers can adopt any law you can imagine through governments, so why do obey to them ?

Я скачал исходники.
Если они будут удалены отсюда, я загружу их опять. Если не на github, то на другой сайт.
Это война между копирастами и свободным софтом, и все средства здесь хороши.
Копирасты могут принять любой закон, какой только можно представить, через правительства, и зачем им вообще подчиняться?

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@f278243 Ну круто. Но я сделал это первым :D
Философствовать о теории заговора, квантовой физики и etc сейчас настроения нет.

Only licence that can prevent me from using something is a DRM that i cant crack.
Other shall be disassembled and shipped to Australia under BSD licence.

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@f278243 Ну круто. Но я сделал это первым :D
Философствовать о теории заговора, квантовой физики и etc сейчас настроения нет.

Only licence that can prevent me from using something is a DRM that i cant crack.
Other shall be disassembled and shipped to Australia under BSD licence.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 23, 2013

@n1rvana Who you call a troll?
You care that its GPL.
And we dont care so much, that we cant be quiet about it.

abvgeej commented Jul 23, 2013

@n1rvana Who you call a troll?
You care that its GPL.
And we dont care so much, that we cant be quiet about it.

@eric2thed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@eric2thed

eric2thed Jul 24, 2013

And to think, Chad (anthrax kernels) was accused in public forums of kanging this code from rxrz - and it wasn't even rxrz's code to begin with. (and Chad had exFAT support long before rxrz even had this github account)

And to think, Chad (anthrax kernels) was accused in public forums of kanging this code from rxrz - and it wasn't even rxrz's code to begin with. (and Chad had exFAT support long before rxrz even had this github account)

@starks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@starks

starks Jul 24, 2013

Stop repeating that lie, Eric. You are purposely misleading people for Chad and your own gain. I said that Chad wasn't using FUSE and wasn't using rxrz's repo. If Chad was using this code, which had been published/leaked before rxrz, or was using the binary modules outside of stock, he may have violated a $30,000 license.

So stop bragging about exfat support in the kernel. It's not something any dev should be implementing due to legal uncertainties. Use exfat through FUSE or face the consequences.

Then again, you and Chad don't give a flying fuck about licenses, especially the GPL, to begin with.

Go back to that hole in the corner of the internet where you mistakenly think the GPL can't reach. Expect code audits really soon.

starks commented Jul 24, 2013

Stop repeating that lie, Eric. You are purposely misleading people for Chad and your own gain. I said that Chad wasn't using FUSE and wasn't using rxrz's repo. If Chad was using this code, which had been published/leaked before rxrz, or was using the binary modules outside of stock, he may have violated a $30,000 license.

So stop bragging about exfat support in the kernel. It's not something any dev should be implementing due to legal uncertainties. Use exfat through FUSE or face the consequences.

Then again, you and Chad don't give a flying fuck about licenses, especially the GPL, to begin with.

Go back to that hole in the corner of the internet where you mistakenly think the GPL can't reach. Expect code audits really soon.

@eric2thed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@eric2thed

eric2thed Jul 24, 2013

@starks - Eric Appleman, you piece of shit.
It was posted on XDA that chad kanged this code. Chad had to "beg" to have the posts "cleaned"

Go troll somewhere else

and yes, I got several emails and gtalks from people who claim YOU are the one who started that rumor.

@starks - Eric Appleman, you piece of shit.
It was posted on XDA that chad kanged this code. Chad had to "beg" to have the posts "cleaned"

Go troll somewhere else

and yes, I got several emails and gtalks from people who claim YOU are the one who started that rumor.

@starks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@starks

starks Jul 24, 2013

Why don't you read the actual email [1] on the list instead of relying on hearsay? You have no interest in the truth and you can't pin on me what some idiot on XDA twisted my words to say.

[1] http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2013-July/004072.html

starks commented Jul 24, 2013

Why don't you read the actual email [1] on the list instead of relying on hearsay? You have no interest in the truth and you can't pin on me what some idiot on XDA twisted my words to say.

[1] http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/legal/2013-July/004072.html

@eric2thed

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@eric2thed

eric2thed Jul 24, 2013

Eric Appleman,

In this thread here, I never said YOU are the one who accused Chad. I just said Chad was accused in public forum (xda).

Then at this point, YOU came into this thread all defensive and what not. Kind of shows a sign of guilt..

But I will repeat myself. I never directly said you started this. I just said several (as in more than 3) people contacted me claiming you did.

I don't care who started the rumor, and neither does Chad. What I care about is every time Chad comes up with a new feature or fix that no one else has - people start rumors claiming Chad kanged it. Even when Chad was 100% open source and 100% GPL complaint (as in every requirement of the GPL had been meet - unlike the kernels on xda that only have partial compliance) with date/time stamps in code.google.com and github, people still managed to label Chad a kanger, when Chad clearly have commited (and uploaded/pushed) the patches long before others.

If you are so "Mr. GPL" why don't you go after 90% of the kernel developers on XDA who violate the GPL. Per the GPL, posting source is not 100% compliance, and if you are not 100% complaint, you are in fact in violation.

HINT -> source code to the actual tool chains used to compile the kernel is a requirement of the GPL, yet - 48 out of 50 kernels I looked at on XDA fail to provide source (either directly or via a link).

Seems people like YOU only cry GPL when the person who does not share has something you want or need.

EDIT:
seems you and Dan Pasanen didn't have anything to say or cry about in regards to GPL until the day Chad released a working Linux 3.4 kernel for CM before Dan or the actual CM team.

AND he had stuff working that Dan had issues with.

Eric Appleman,

In this thread here, I never said YOU are the one who accused Chad. I just said Chad was accused in public forum (xda).

Then at this point, YOU came into this thread all defensive and what not. Kind of shows a sign of guilt..

But I will repeat myself. I never directly said you started this. I just said several (as in more than 3) people contacted me claiming you did.

I don't care who started the rumor, and neither does Chad. What I care about is every time Chad comes up with a new feature or fix that no one else has - people start rumors claiming Chad kanged it. Even when Chad was 100% open source and 100% GPL complaint (as in every requirement of the GPL had been meet - unlike the kernels on xda that only have partial compliance) with date/time stamps in code.google.com and github, people still managed to label Chad a kanger, when Chad clearly have commited (and uploaded/pushed) the patches long before others.

If you are so "Mr. GPL" why don't you go after 90% of the kernel developers on XDA who violate the GPL. Per the GPL, posting source is not 100% compliance, and if you are not 100% complaint, you are in fact in violation.

HINT -> source code to the actual tool chains used to compile the kernel is a requirement of the GPL, yet - 48 out of 50 kernels I looked at on XDA fail to provide source (either directly or via a link).

Seems people like YOU only cry GPL when the person who does not share has something you want or need.

EDIT:
seems you and Dan Pasanen didn't have anything to say or cry about in regards to GPL until the day Chad released a working Linux 3.4 kernel for CM before Dan or the actual CM team.

AND he had stuff working that Dan had issues with.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

Please. Just accept that this violates GPL and all possible sh_t.
Stop doing a massive holywar, sh_tting in my notifications and email.

I am not going to repeat my statements again.
This shall be closed as "NOT A BUG/BY DESIGN" asap.

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

Please. Just accept that this violates GPL and all possible sh_t.
Stop doing a massive holywar, sh_tting in my notifications and email.

I am not going to repeat my statements again.
This shall be closed as "NOT A BUG/BY DESIGN" asap.

@HumanAmplification

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@HumanAmplification

HumanAmplification Jul 24, 2013

@rxrz You are awesome. That is all.

@rxrz You are awesome. That is all.

@insanemal

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@insanemal

insanemal Jul 24, 2013

Am I too late to yell and scream?

So How true is the below :

So Wrong.
exfat_version.h:/* - 2012.04.02 : P1 : Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary */

this is version p2. I could've technically stripped those comments and changed the version number to /* - 2012.02.10 : Release Version 1.1.0 */ But I didn't. Originally, it was either public domain or GPL.
Nobody would've ever found out by the code alone, which version this actually is.

And do we have the code prior to relicensing?

Am I too late to yell and scream?

So How true is the below :

So Wrong.
exfat_version.h:/* - 2012.04.02 : P1 : Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary */

this is version p2. I could've technically stripped those comments and changed the version number to /* - 2012.02.10 : Release Version 1.1.0 */ But I didn't. Originally, it was either public domain or GPL.
Nobody would've ever found out by the code alone, which version this actually is.

And do we have the code prior to relicensing?

@ciphersson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@ciphersson

ciphersson Jul 24, 2013

Question.... Can I fork it and reupload it under WTFPL license?

Question.... Can I fork it and reupload it under WTFPL license?

@masklinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@masklinn

masklinn Jul 24, 2013

Question.... Can I fork it and reupload it under WTFPL license?

You can't legally do that any more than @rxrz can relicense it under GPL: only the copyright owners can relicense it, in this case until proven otherwise it is Samsung.

Question.... Can I fork it and reupload it under WTFPL license?

You can't legally do that any more than @rxrz can relicense it under GPL: only the copyright owners can relicense it, in this case until proven otherwise it is Samsung.

@RobertWHurst

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@RobertWHurst

RobertWHurst Jul 24, 2013

It doesn't really matter. The fact that this source is available means that now anyone can write their own version using this as a model. Simply put, create a test suite for this driver, take those tests, write a new, hopefully better driver.

Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:44 AM, masklinn notifications@github.com
wrote:

Question.... Can I fork it and reupload it under WTFPL license?

You can't legally do that any more than @rxrz can relicense it under GPL: only the copyright owners can relicense it, in this case until proven otherwise it is Samsung.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
rxrz#5 (comment)

It doesn't really matter. The fact that this source is available means that now anyone can write their own version using this as a model. Simply put, create a test suite for this driver, take those tests, write a new, hopefully better driver.

Sent from Mailbox for iPhone

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:44 AM, masklinn notifications@github.com
wrote:

Question.... Can I fork it and reupload it under WTFPL license?

You can't legally do that any more than @rxrz can relicense it under GPL: only the copyright owners can relicense it, in this case until proven otherwise it is Samsung.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
rxrz#5 (comment)

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn DO IT NOW.

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn DO IT NOW.

@masklinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@masklinn

masklinn Jul 24, 2013

@RobertWHurst

It doesn't really matter. The fact that this source is available means that now anyone can write their own version using this as a model. Simply put, create a test suite for this driver, take those tests, write a new, hopefully better driver.

Great, now you've built a derivative work of the proprietary source and you're going to get lawyered to death. Why do you think reverse-engineers take great care to avoid accessing and reading any source pertaining to what they're trying to reverse-engineer in case it's tainted and not supposed to be publicly available?

@zetaneta
Do what?

@RobertWHurst

It doesn't really matter. The fact that this source is available means that now anyone can write their own version using this as a model. Simply put, create a test suite for this driver, take those tests, write a new, hopefully better driver.

Great, now you've built a derivative work of the proprietary source and you're going to get lawyered to death. Why do you think reverse-engineers take great care to avoid accessing and reading any source pertaining to what they're trying to reverse-engineer in case it's tainted and not supposed to be publicly available?

@zetaneta
Do what?

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn Stop the lawyer sh*t.
No one cares about them...

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn Stop the lawyer sh*t.
No one cares about them...

@masklinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@masklinn

masklinn Jul 24, 2013

@zetaneta
Here's any idea if you don't care: don't watch an issue whose very subject is licensing issues.

@zetaneta
Here's any idea if you don't care: don't watch an issue whose very subject is licensing issues.

@flying-sheep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flying-sheep

flying-sheep Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn false. writing code passing a test suite isn’t reengineering.

@masklinn false. writing code passing a test suite isn’t reengineering.

@masklinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@masklinn

masklinn Jul 24, 2013

@flying-sheep
The knowledge in the test suite is tainted by its source, writing code based on the test suite is tainted in turn. For the same reason that you won't avoid legal issues if one guy reads source he doesn't have license to, illegally documents it, and a second guy only uses that documentation to create a new program reproducing the high-level behavior of the original.

@flying-sheep
The knowledge in the test suite is tainted by its source, writing code based on the test suite is tainted in turn. For the same reason that you won't avoid legal issues if one guy reads source he doesn't have license to, illegally documents it, and a second guy only uses that documentation to create a new program reproducing the high-level behavior of the original.

@flying-sheep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@flying-sheep

flying-sheep Jul 24, 2013

@ericd858 it’s completely OK to provide the source only when asked for it, so it’s valid to “cry violation” only if you asked them to release it / give it to you and they didn’t.

@masklinn you can’t copyright an API. (see oracle vs google case) how are tests or documentation different?

@ericd858 it’s completely OK to provide the source only when asked for it, so it’s valid to “cry violation” only if you asked them to release it / give it to you and they didn’t.

@masklinn you can’t copyright an API. (see oracle vs google case) how are tests or documentation different?

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@maskinn I wanna teach people that licensing is not important.
And I wanna close this issue.

@flying-sheep You are right. API is free :D

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@maskinn I wanna teach people that licensing is not important.
And I wanna close this issue.

@flying-sheep You are right. API is free :D

@masklinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@masklinn

masklinn Jul 24, 2013

@flying-sheep

@masklinn you can’t copyright an API. (see oracle vs google case) how are tests or documentation different?

Just testing the API of a filesystem is worthless, the API is already public and documented (Linux Filesystem API, http://lwn.net/Articles/57369/) and will bring you no further than before the code drop. The important parts here are the details of the exFAT layout because that's what has been missing all along, and what nobody managed to reverse-engineer. And if you're testing that (so that you can actually rewrite an exFAT FS from your tests), you're not testing an API anymore you're testing an exFAT implementation.

@zetaneta

@maskinn I wanna teach people that licensing is not important.

So you want to teach people falsehoods. Gotcha.

And I wanna close this issue.

It's already closed.

@flying-sheep

@masklinn you can’t copyright an API. (see oracle vs google case) how are tests or documentation different?

Just testing the API of a filesystem is worthless, the API is already public and documented (Linux Filesystem API, http://lwn.net/Articles/57369/) and will bring you no further than before the code drop. The important parts here are the details of the exFAT layout because that's what has been missing all along, and what nobody managed to reverse-engineer. And if you're testing that (so that you can actually rewrite an exFAT FS from your tests), you're not testing an API anymore you're testing an exFAT implementation.

@zetaneta

@maskinn I wanna teach people that licensing is not important.

So you want to teach people falsehoods. Gotcha.

And I wanna close this issue.

It's already closed.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn If its closed.... Why the heck you keep commenting on it?

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn If its closed.... Why the heck you keep commenting on it?

@masklinn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@masklinn

masklinn Jul 24, 2013

How's that your problem?

How's that your problem?

@ulidtko

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@ulidtko

ulidtko Jul 24, 2013

Pro tip: unsubscribe from the thread. There is a button below.

ulidtko commented Jul 24, 2013

Pro tip: unsubscribe from the thread. There is a button below.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn You are already forgeting my name tag.
@ulidtko Я собираюсь закрыть этот issue. Причем так чтобы на него перестали отвечать.

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@masklinn You are already forgeting my name tag.
@ulidtko Я собираюсь закрыть этот issue. Причем так чтобы на него перестали отвечать.

@starks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@starks

starks Jul 24, 2013

I've contacted the Samsung Open Source Release Center.

Expect the legal hammering to begin shortly.

starks commented Jul 24, 2013

I've contacted the Samsung Open Source Release Center.

Expect the legal hammering to begin shortly.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@starks Why exactly you have done so?
To make world worser?

It been ok like it was, not you got him in trouble.
For what heck you have done that?

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@starks Why exactly you have done so?
To make world worser?

It been ok like it was, not you got him in trouble.
For what heck you have done that?

@starks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@starks

starks Jul 24, 2013

Don't worry. I reminded Samsung that they were using GPL code that they shouldn't be using.

starks commented Jul 24, 2013

Don't worry. I reminded Samsung that they were using GPL code that they shouldn't be using.

@ulidtko

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@ulidtko

ulidtko Jul 24, 2013

@zetaneta the issue is already closed. Trying to shut people's mouths is violation of their freedom of speech, and is unethical and/or illegal.
BTW did you already find the "unwatch thread" button, or do you need assistance with this?

@starks, did they respond?

ulidtko commented Jul 24, 2013

@zetaneta the issue is already closed. Trying to shut people's mouths is violation of their freedom of speech, and is unethical and/or illegal.
BTW did you already find the "unwatch thread" button, or do you need assistance with this?

@starks, did they respond?

@starks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@starks

starks Jul 24, 2013

It takes a day or two but they respond without fail.

I want this license situation cleared up. There should be no ambiguity whether this code is safe to use or not.

starks commented Jul 24, 2013

It takes a day or two but they respond without fail.

I want this license situation cleared up. There should be no ambiguity whether this code is safe to use or not.

@abvgeej

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@abvgeej

abvgeej Jul 24, 2013

@ulidtko TOS на моем личном сайте... о, ты точно должен его прочесть.
И тутже потерять свои ООНовские права человека, свое гражданство (если оно конфликтует с моим TOS), дать рут доступ к своему компу и etc....

@starks Okay, do what ever. If you really want, you can clear that up. Yet, i am keeping my copy of all of this on my pc, and not even death can "rm" it. I am unsubscribing.

abvgeej commented Jul 24, 2013

@ulidtko TOS на моем личном сайте... о, ты точно должен его прочесть.
И тутже потерять свои ООНовские права человека, свое гражданство (если оно конфликтует с моим TOS), дать рут доступ к своему компу и etc....

@starks Okay, do what ever. If you really want, you can clear that up. Yet, i am keeping my copy of all of this on my pc, and not even death can "rm" it. I am unsubscribing.

@jristz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@jristz

jristz Jul 24, 2013

MODPOST 2 modules
FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module exfat_fs.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'mutex_destroy'

I the build process, maybe this is a thing about the licensing issue.... Or a boicot from the Kernel/Linux side??
because in 3.10.1 build but in 3.10.2 give that error

jristz commented Jul 24, 2013

MODPOST 2 modules
FATAL: modpost: GPL-incompatible module exfat_fs.ko uses GPL-only symbol 'mutex_destroy'

I the build process, maybe this is a thing about the licensing issue.... Or a boicot from the Kernel/Linux side??
because in 3.10.1 build but in 3.10.2 give that error

@tdfischer

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@tdfischer

tdfischer Jul 25, 2013

ITT: IANAL but have a complete understanding of copyright law and software licensing

ITT: IANAL but have a complete understanding of copyright law and software licensing

@snj33v

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@snj33v

snj33v Jul 27, 2013

GPL license included in android is somewhat gray area,but still kernel license covers that any code written, modified ( including dir fs) will always comes under GPL except binary blobs

@rxrz don't worry about any closed source company, this is similar to Microsoft's Hyper-V submission , you have done a right thing, consider like this

SAMSUNG got (with/without permission) code from MICROSOFT for exfat

SAMSUNG violated GPL itself by including it to kernel,(if not derivative work)

snj33v commented Jul 27, 2013

GPL license included in android is somewhat gray area,but still kernel license covers that any code written, modified ( including dir fs) will always comes under GPL except binary blobs

@rxrz don't worry about any closed source company, this is similar to Microsoft's Hyper-V submission , you have done a right thing, consider like this

SAMSUNG got (with/without permission) code from MICROSOFT for exfat

SAMSUNG violated GPL itself by including it to kernel,(if not derivative work)

@magnusnordlander

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@magnusnordlander

magnusnordlander Jul 27, 2013

@samdraz Samsung may or may not have violated the GPL (that's for a court to decide), but even if they did it doesn't make the code automatically GPL licensed. It simply makes Samsung in violation of the license, vulnerable to legal action, and possibly to paying damages.

You've probably heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

@samdraz Samsung may or may not have violated the GPL (that's for a court to decide), but even if they did it doesn't make the code automatically GPL licensed. It simply makes Samsung in violation of the license, vulnerable to legal action, and possibly to paying damages.

You've probably heard the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

@snj33v

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@snj33v

snj33v Jul 27, 2013

sorry @magnusnordlander for GPL confusion , thanks for info
lets see how well samsung going to pay
but remember some code is still under GPL
look at @starks rxrz#5 (comment) comment

snj33v commented Jul 27, 2013

sorry @magnusnordlander for GPL confusion , thanks for info
lets see how well samsung going to pay
but remember some code is still under GPL
look at @starks rxrz#5 (comment) comment

@RalphCorderoy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@RalphCorderoy

RalphCorderoy Jul 31, 2013

@ericd858, you wrote "source code to the actual tool chains used to compile the kernel is a requirement of the GPL". This is incorrect. GNU GPL v2 says "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)...".

@ericd858, you wrote "source code to the actual tool chains used to compile the kernel is a requirement of the GPL". This is incorrect. GNU GPL v2 says "However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)...".

@Bluebie

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@Bluebie

Bluebie Aug 1, 2013

Can I just say @rxrz already said that they're a girl in one of their posts, so why do all you fucking neckbeards keep calling @rxrz 'he' and 'him'?

Down with copyright and down with the patriarchy!

Bluebie commented Aug 1, 2013

Can I just say @rxrz already said that they're a girl in one of their posts, so why do all you fucking neckbeards keep calling @rxrz 'he' and 'him'?

Down with copyright and down with the patriarchy!

@diversario

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@diversario

diversario Aug 1, 2013

I'd like to see how this plays out.

I'd like to see how this plays out.

@bkuhn

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@bkuhn

bkuhn Aug 16, 2013

Conservancy has been working with Samsung since this issue began, and Conservancy is pleased to announce that the situation is resolved, and Samsung has released the exfat source code themselves on the Samsung OSRC site (search for "exfat" there to find it).

However, I personally recommend that the code in this repository be deleted from GitHub, as it was not a legitimate release from Samsung. I've downloaded the sources from Samsung's OSRC site, and placed those exfat sources into a new git repository. I strongly suggest people who are interested in this code use that repository rather than this one.

bkuhn commented Aug 16, 2013

Conservancy has been working with Samsung since this issue began, and Conservancy is pleased to announce that the situation is resolved, and Samsung has released the exfat source code themselves on the Samsung OSRC site (search for "exfat" there to find it).

However, I personally recommend that the code in this repository be deleted from GitHub, as it was not a legitimate release from Samsung. I've downloaded the sources from Samsung's OSRC site, and placed those exfat sources into a new git repository. I strongly suggest people who are interested in this code use that repository rather than this one.

@snj33v

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@snj33v

snj33v Aug 16, 2013

Well ..atlast.. problem is fixed

@rxrz can close the issue now

snj33v commented Aug 16, 2013

Well ..atlast.. problem is fixed

@rxrz can close the issue now

@clopez

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@clopez

clopez Aug 16, 2013

Amazing! Samsung release a GPLed ExFAT driver http://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/

clopez commented Aug 16, 2013

Amazing! Samsung release a GPLed ExFAT driver http://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment