Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

lists.gpl-violations.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#101

Post by Nursie »

scotty79 wrote: post #100
Nursie wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to tell - there doesn't seem to be any proof of this and in the case of leaked code I'd be wanting proof.

I think judge should force Samsung to release all the information they have on history of this code. After all Samsung is suspected of violating the license. Shouldn't they be able to prove copyright before they can claim it?

The only reference I've seen to suspected license violations is the assertion in the git history that it was at one time under GPL or maybe public domain. There's no provenance here.

I doubt this will ever get before a judge, more likely a combination of DMCA takedowns and exclusion from the mainline kernel.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#102

Post by chalst »

wisty wrote: post #52
maaaats wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, again. Also found: > Now, putting it publicly on github qualifies as distribution, and therefore this code is also under the GPLv2 license implicitly. The act has already been done, and even if it does contain copyrighted bits by MS, the released version is now forever GPL. so, yeah.. by this logic I can take my company's code, put it on GitHub under a GPL license and now everyone is free to use it under GPL. Do…

I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.

Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freedom to change and redistribute). But these freedoms can only be granted by people who are in a position to say who gets to exercise those rights.

That code might come with a GPL, but the license it grants is worthless, because the people who put it there have no connection to the copyright holders.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#103

Post by king_jester »

rst wrote: post #70
bad_user wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyanogenmod ROMs aren't distributed with Google's apps anymore. If you want Google's Play store and Gmail, one needs to download and install a separate archive (I just did that yesterday :)) Of course, the distribution of that archive is still suspect. The licensing of those apps is the only leverage Google has for controlling the companies that distribute Android, like Samsung. It is meant for the likes of Samsung a…

Unfortunately, bare-bones Android may get barer and more awkward over time, if they migrate more services from the core OS into "Google Play Services". As an example, the new geofencing APIs that they announced at the last Google I/O (intended to replace the buggy core "proximity alerts") are part of "Google Play Services", not the core OS --- and therefore not available on devices which aren't part of the Play borg.…

> As an example, the new geofencing APIs that they announced at the last Google I/O (intended to replace the buggy core "proximity alerts") are part of "Google Play Services", not the core OS --- and therefore not available on devices which aren't part of the Play borg.

The location services framework in Android is deliberately tied to Google APIs for using address and location resolution, while gathering location sensor data is not. Wouldn't it make sense further evolutions of that API also only work with Google APIs?

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#104

Post by taeric »

rst wrote: post #70
bad_user wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyanogenmod ROMs aren't distributed with Google's apps anymore. If you want Google's Play store and Gmail, one needs to download and install a separate archive (I just did that yesterday :)) Of course, the distribution of that archive is still suspect. The licensing of those apps is the only leverage Google has for controlling the companies that distribute Android, like Samsung. It is meant for the likes of Samsung a…

Unfortunately, bare-bones Android may get barer and more awkward over time, if they migrate more services from the core OS into "Google Play Services". As an example, the new geofencing APIs that they announced at the last Google I/O (intended to replace the buggy core "proximity alerts") are part of "Google Play Services", not the core OS --- and therefore not available on devices which aren't part of the Play borg.…

Meh. Don't know how much this really sucks the usability out of things. On my Android, I confess I'm already so bought in to the Amazon ecosystem that I almost resent the room that Play and the likes are taking up. Is particularly obnoxious when the phone complains that I need to make room, and the only crap I can't move to an SD card is the Google stuff.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#105

Post by crististm »

effn wrote: post #34
kristofferR wrote: post #19

Samsung may not have intended it as such, but aren't all derivatives of GPL-licenced code also GPL by definition?

No. The authors of GPL-licensed code has no say in how other people license their code they don't own the copyright on. Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.

This is not such a gray area as you think. Search for the readline license and what that meant to clisp.

Hint: derivative work of a GPL code is GPL (although that was slightly different for clisp).

You are free not have GPL stamp on your code as long as you keep it to yourself. If you distribute it to a third party you are automatically bound by GPL.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#106

Post by Dylan16807 »

coldpie wrote: post #76
wisty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.

Here's a couple of related answers at the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... Unfortunately, the question isn't really directly answered. The most relevant passage seems to be, "If the [unwittingly distributed] version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other cir…

I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#107

Post by king_jester »

ars wrote: post #87
yareally wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No worries :). I just think of it as another way of saying "dude".

Bad example because officially dude is also male. The female is dudine, dudette, or dudess. But like like guy, dude because gender neutral in common speech.

Just to nitpick, guy and dude are not gender neutral, they just happened to be heavily used by the community in general, mostly because people assume users are men by default.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#108

Post by [deleted] »

wisty wrote: post #52
maaaats wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, again. Also found: > Now, putting it publicly on github qualifies as distribution, and therefore this code is also under the GPLv2 license implicitly. The act has already been done, and even if it does contain copyrighted bits by MS, the released version is now forever GPL. so, yeah.. by this logic I can take my company's code, put it on GitHub under a GPL license and now everyone is free to use it under GPL. Do…

I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.

[deleted]

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#109

Post by Dylan16807 »

chalst wrote: post #102
wisty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.

Licenses grant freedoms to do things that you would not otherwise be allowed to do. Here, the GPL means that someone with copyright grants a freedom (the freedom to change and redistribute). But these freedoms can only be granted by people who are in a position to say who gets to exercise those rights. That code might come with a GPL, but the license it grants is worthless, because the people who put it there have no…

I think Wisty was responding to the part where the crazy man claimed the driver code was originally GPL internally before being changed.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#110

Post by Dylan16807 »

crististm wrote: post #105
effn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The authors of GPL-licensed code has no say in how other people license their code they don't own the copyright on. Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.

This is not such a gray area as you think. Search for the readline license and what that meant to clisp. Hint: derivative work of a GPL code is GPL (although that was slightly different for clisp). You are free not have GPL stamp on your code as long as you keep it to yourself. If you distribute it to a third party you are automatically bound by GPL.

There is no gray area. Derivative works are GPL or illegal. But nothing physically forces people from breaking the law. You cannot GPL a piece of code against the author's will.
Post reply on HN