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

141–150 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#141

Post by jlgreco »

brewski wrote: post #125
Dylan16807 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two related but subtly different uses here. A word like 'he' is a default , which can lead to problematic implications. A word like 'guy', to some people, is a true neutral, implying gender no more than the word 'somebody'. Even if we were talking about 'he', your link would be out of place. Calling out the use of a gendered default as bad is not in fact another point of view on whether it is the default.

I have never heard of a female being addressed as "guy". Phrases such as "hey guy", "what's up guy" and so on have always been directed to a male.

In phrases like those the word "dude" is more common than "guy", and it is frequently directed at women.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#142

Post by freehunter »

burntsushi wrote: post #131
stonemetal wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyanogenmod) are based on this scene, and there is nothing grey or remotely shady about it. So when Cyanogenmod was distributing the play store apps illegally there was nothing shady going on? It isn't like they suddenly decided to do the right thing, it was a C&D from Google that got them to stop. http://androidandme.com/2009/09/hacks/cyanogenmod-in-trouble...

That was four years ago. I think that's long enough to make a distinction between "they started out doing something they weren't supposed to" and "there's nothing shady about Cyanogenmod."

And yet people still point out that Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, and IBM worked with the Nazis and that Microsoft had been convicted of an illegal monopoly even though that all happened decades ago.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#143

Post by [deleted] »

freehunter wrote: post #142
burntsushi wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was four years ago. I think that's long enough to make a distinction between "they started out doing something they weren't supposed to" and "there's nothing shady about Cyanogenmod."

And yet people still point out that Volkswagen, Hugo Boss, and IBM worked with the Nazis and that Microsoft had been convicted of an illegal monopoly even though that all happened decades ago.

[deleted]

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#144

Post by freehunter »

brewski wrote: post #125
Dylan16807 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two related but subtly different uses here. A word like 'he' is a default , which can lead to problematic implications. A word like 'guy', to some people, is a true neutral, implying gender no more than the word 'somebody'. Even if we were talking about 'he', your link would be out of place. Calling out the use of a gendered default as bad is not in fact another point of view on whether it is the default.

I have never heard of a female being addressed as "guy". Phrases such as "hey guy", "what's up guy" and so on have always been directed to a male.

"Hey, guys!" in reference to a mixed group is perfectly acceptable. "That guy" in reference to someone you do not know the gender of is also perfectly acceptable. Directly referring to a known female as "guy" is less so.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#145

Post by bjornsing »

This is a quite interesting case from a legal standpoint. IANAL but my 5 cents are:

* If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel.

* If so then these two sections of the GPL seem relevant:

> 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

* I'm not absolutely sure what that means for rxrz. Section 6 seems to imply that rxrz may have a license to the driver, and that that license is indeed the GPL. On the other hand section 4 seems to imply that the redistribution to rxrz was "void". Does that mean rxrz does not have the rights under section 6?

If I where rxrz I would at least toy with this idea: a) wait for the DMCA take down notice, b) challenge it claiming to have a license under section 6 of the GPL and c) hope that Samsung does not have the nerve to go to court and risk a decision that would clarify that their license to the Linux kernel has been irreversibly revoked. :)

But where does that leave us concerning legality? Is it clear that what rxrz has done is illegal?

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#146

Post by phaemon »

bradleyjg wrote: post #138
bxc89 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are those of us who completely disagree with copyright law. How many years have been wasted on projects like Samba because of draconian copyright? Much simpler and cleaner to acquire the source.

If you disagree with it, you are free not to copyright your own works.

That's like saying if you disagree with slavery, you're free not to own slaves.

Copyright places a restriction on what I can do with information I legally have in my possession. It is a restriction on my freedom of expression. You might argue that the restriction is worth it in order to encourage artists, but don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#147

Post by jevinskie »

pnathan wrote: post #140
yareally wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point. I've had more than one conversation with friends in the Android community where we try to understand exactly why the Android development community is as toxic as it is at times. Part of it definitely has to do with the end users getting too close to those doing the development and the result is chaos. It ends with users totally disrespecting real developers--stirring up unnecessary drama and fanboyism. T…

> Part of it definitely has to do with the end users getting too close to those doing the development and the result is chaos. I don't understand what you mean. Shouldn't a close relationship between developers and users be a key goal in development?

I think the point is that the relationship isn't getting useful work done. In a ROM thread on XDA developers there are no good bug reports with reproductions, expected results, etc. It is a bunch of people saying "this doesn't work" and "no of course it should work for you because it works on my phone" and especially off-the-cuff performance evaluations ("much smoother, no stuttering or lag"). It is difficult to figure out who knows their shit and who is just bullshitting.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#148

Post by Nursie »

bjornsing wrote: post #145

This is a quite interesting case from a legal standpoint. IANAL but my 5 cents are: * If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel. * If so then these two sections of the GPL seem relevant: > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any…

>> If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel.

Did Samsung really distribute the source if it was published by accident by one employee?

Even if they did, it's under a proprietary license and it's not clear that proprietary kernel modules are necessarily derivative works, they are commonplace.

Even if they are derivative that may make Samsung in violation of the GPL but not actually make their code covered (these are be separate issues).

And even if they are in violation, this usually has to be challenged by a copyright holder, not simply by a recipient of the binaries. And that's if rxrv even received any binaries...

Section 6 is interesting there - "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions."

I could see a lawyer arguing that the "Program" in clause 1 and 2 are the same, but if you distribute a work based on the Program the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program itself but not the work based on the Program, as that is not enumerated in clause 2.

And this is before we even get into the patent violations that any use of such code involves.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#149

Post by Nursie »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #128
read_again wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What chalst probably meant is that the fact that the code was orginally GPL doesn't make any illegal obtention of the code legal. If you keep code you wrote on your computer with a GPL attached, and someone breaks in and find it, he won't have the right to use it afterwards thanks to GPL. The GPL defines the rights offered to "clients" by the "vendor", and how these rights are granted. Illegal obtention of the code i…

Isn't the GPL unilateral? If something is actually under the GPL, it shouldn't matter how it was obtained.

I don't think so, no. The GPL talks about a lot of transference of rights that take place during the act of distribution. If one does not have those rights to start with (the code was stolen, for instance) then it wouldn't apply.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#150

Post by Nursie »

foxhill wrote: post #64
Nursie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A mess of lawsuits, withdrawn devices and shut down code repos most likely.

i didn't necessarily mean for practical use, i just meant, what sort of finished (hah) product could come out at the end!

We might have better interop with proprietary software. Maybe. It's possible that the BSDs would have more hardware support as they could just borrow it from Linux.

Companies would probably keep an even tighter guard on their code. They may stop contributing to FOSS completely without the protection of the GPL.

We'd probably find all sorts of weird binaries being thrown around the place, as seems to happen in the android scene, where people just splice stuff together without considering any of this stuff. Support and consistency would be a nightmare. People would be less able to build on each others work as there would be no necessity for anyone to publish anything if they didn't want to or couldn't be bothered.

I don't think it would be any sort of utopia.

Post reply on HN