21–30 of 206 posts
Samsung may not have intended it as such, but aren't all derivatives of GPL-licenced code also GPL by definition?
I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).
GPL, 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".
Sadly, this is a typical thing that goes on in the Android User development community. Lots of casual attitudes by hobbyists that modify the Linux Kernel and rattle off some sort of excuse for not posting their sources while distributing binary copies. 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…
Hmmm...
https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-2... :
> And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl.
Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.
Samsung may not have intended it as such, but aren't all derivatives of GPL-licenced code also GPL by definition?
The questions are - is it a derivative of GPL code, and if so have they distributed binaries? I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).
The github issue is amazing reading: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5 Normally 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.
GPL, 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".
If you talk to people who aren't licensing and legal enthusiasts, most don't have an interest in those topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly, this is a typical thing that goes on in the Android User development community. Lots of casual attitudes by hobbyists that modify the Linux Kernel and rattle off some sort of excuse for not posting their sources while distributing binary copies. 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…
> Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, [...] Hmmm... https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-2... : > And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl. Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.
you know, it'd be interesting to see what the open source community could produce if we all took his approach to licences for a little while.
Oh, we had that, that was called "pirated [Stallman forgive me] Windows". I believe I had leaked W2K sources burned on some old CD, if they're still readable...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The questions are - is it a derivative of GPL code, and if so have they distributed binaries? I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).
Those are technically GPL violations, but kernel devs haven't (yet) complained much.
The github issue is amazing reading: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5 Normally 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.
> 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". Wow.
> People with emotional insecurities are trying to make up something depressing and horrible, point a finger and make lots of noise.
> For me it was just sad to see people complaining more often than being grateful or happy about something.
> I hope they will patent and release a license on negative thinking.[0]
Actually, the entire Phoronix thread is an amazing display of incompetence.
> Were do you assume "this source code is not under GPLv2"? Source of this please? This implementation (code) was on github, that says something to you? [1]
My mind is boggled so hard right now. This better be a conspiracy to discredit FOSS, otherwise I'm losing yet another piece of trust in human sanity.
[0] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux... [1] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux...