Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
lists.gpl-violations.org
Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
1–10 of 206 posts
Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#2Got original ATA usage from Linux--just the magic numbers to make ATA work. Linux got the numbers from ATA specs. Now, I have ATA specs.
Do you really want to fight God in court? He will kill you.
God says... C:\TAD\Text\DARWIN.TXT
ered very distinct from each other, take the rank of species.
The truth of the principle that the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure, is seen under many natural circumstances. In an extremely small area, especially if freely open to immigration, and where the contest between individual and individual must be very severe, we always find great diversity in its inhabitants. For instance, I found that a piece of turf, three feet by four in size, which had
Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#3Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#4Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#5Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#6the ways of the tin foil is strong with the repo's maintainer.
Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#7Normally you expect the copyright issues to be going in the other direction at gpl-violations, but kudos to them for noticing the problem and dealing with it quickly.
Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#8Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#9Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL
#10GPL, and probably other licenses, were constructed to work with copyright law. Such cavalier dismissal (by rxrz) is disrespecting those who created the licenses, the legal system, and the open source community, at large. We live in the real world, not "The Matrix".
Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, thinking that because they changed a few lines of code, they can claim to own the license to the software now. I'd say that is probably much more prevalent since there's a general assumption by many that the license most Android based software uses, Apache 2.0 means "do whatever you want".
Even worse is the fact that many users in the community are also quick to defend them blindly because they know little of development and why following licenses matter (even after all the facts are laid out and explained).