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

151–160 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#151

Post by bradleyjg »

phaemon wrote: post #146
bradleyjg wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's awfully convenient that this fundamental right you are positing allows you to use other's work without doing anything at all yourself.

Like so many unrealistic libertarian positions the grandparent demands the fruits of civilization while rejecting the very rules that made them possible.

There exists even to this day places where you can freely live in something very much like a state of nature, where life continues to be nasty, brutish, and short but you have maximal FREEDOM!

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#152

Post by anon1385 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #130
read_again wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, you have to accept the license as a user to be able to use it. However, you don't give up your right to keep any change for yourself if you don't distribute it in a different format (e.g. binary). Whatever you do in your house is your business. That's probably what you meant (in spirit so to speak), though law wise it is very different.

>Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. Why do you say you have to accept it?

Because running software involves making copies of that software. This requires you to have permission from the copyright holder. The GPL provides you with that permission, without adding any further conditions if the copies are just for the purpose of running the software.

http://www.digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise20.html

It is now well-accepted that copyright protects computer programs and other digital information, whether they are in readable source code form or are an executable program that is intended to be understood only by a computer. Copies are made whenever the program is transferred from floppy disk to hard disk or is read into the computer’s memory for execution, and those copies will infringe the copyright of the computer program if they are not permitted by the copyright owner or by copyright law.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#153

Post by phaemon »

bradleyjg wrote: post #151
phaemon wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's awfully convenient that this fundamental right you are positing allows you to use other's work without doing anything at all yourself. Like so many unrealistic libertarian positions the grandparent demands the fruits of civilization while rejecting the very rules that made them possible. There exists even to this day places where you can freely live in something very much like a state of nature, where life conti…

I didn't posit the right to freedom of expression. It's been around a long time. And I don't pirate anything, and do produce work that would qualify for copyright, so how is it convenient for me?

As for your second point: I should support bad laws because otherwise I must be supporting anarchy? Is that seriously your argument? Perhaps you should give it more thought...

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#154

Post by adamzochowski »

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.

Actually it matters.

Original code is GPL. I make modifications. These modifications are mine. Someone stealing my modifications is performing IP theft.

Now, GPL stipulates when I have to release my modifications. I only have to release my patches when GPLv2: I distribute software to clients/users. In GPLv3 it is when clients/users use my software (aka: webservices).

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#155

Post by [deleted] »

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."

[deleted]

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#156

Post by bradleyjg »

phaemon wrote: post #153
bradleyjg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's awfully convenient that this fundamental right you are positing allows you to use other's work without doing anything at all yourself. Like so many unrealistic libertarian positions the grandparent demands the fruits of civilization while rejecting the very rules that made them possible. There exists even to this day places where you can freely live in something very much like a state of nature, where life conti…

I didn't posit the right to freedom of expression. It's been around a long time. And I don't pirate anything, and do produce work that would qualify for copyright, so how is it convenient for me? As for your second point: I should support bad laws because otherwise I must be supporting anarchy? Is that seriously your argument? Perhaps you should give it more thought...

The original post in this thread wasn't talking about supporting or not supporting bad laws, he was talking about ignoring them ("much simpler and cleaner to acquire the source"). Ignoring laws because you disagree with them is anarchy.

Also while applications of copyright impact freedom of expression (i.e. The Wind Done Gone, there are plenty that don't. There's nothing expressive about pirating software, and very little expressive in redistributing unmodified or barely modified proprietary software.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#157

Post by stonemetal »

josteink wrote: post #86
fulafel wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The open source subset of Android is not practically usable though. There aren't many (any?) devices that work usefully without a lot of proprietary bits.

While true, you don't need to supply the actual copyrighted/licensed binaries across the internet. You can just supply a shell-script to extract them from the device, and its assumed that interested parties wanting to build the code has the device themselves. Feel free to call it a loophole, but I don't have a problem with that and definitely don't see it as something shady.

True but from what I understand the images they put out have all the bits baked in. You literally just flash the new firmware onto the device. That means they are distributing bits they don't have licence to distribute.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#158

Post by bjornsing »

Nursie wrote: post #148
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 ar…

> 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.

True, proprietary kernel modules are commonplace, and not necessarily derivative works. But you very rarely see proprietary drivers "in-tree" (that is where the source code file is placed into the Linux kernel source code tree and built as part of the kernel build process). I remember reading an argument by Torvalds that any driver built in that way is a derivative work of the kernel (even if it is built into a module) but unfortunately I can't find it now.

> 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).

Mmm... I'm not entirely sure... Normally I'm a "separate issues" kind of guy, but here I'm hesitating...

To make this interesting let's say Samsung has distributed to rxrz in binary form and that the driver is a derivative work. Then the driver is part of the Program distributed to rxrz under the GPL and Samsung has granted rxrz this right (as per section 1 of the GPLv2):

"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program."

Isn't that exactly what rxrz has done? :) Why would rxrz not be allowed to argue that in court? I agree that normally the issues are separate, but in my mind the GPL ties them together in this case. I'm not saying that rxrz is right, but it's not entirely clear-cut to me.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#159

Post by tbrownaw »

belorn wrote: post #77
Nursie wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been able to find a statement from 2008 in which many kernel devs publicly said they think that closed drivers are harmful. But violations? I'm not convinced. Got a link that might convince me?

Depend which you want to listen to. If you want to listen to what lawyers think (fsf), then there is a GPL violation( https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#NonfreeDriverKerne... ). If you want to listen to kernel hackers, (such as Linus Torvalds), then he doesn't say if it is, or isn't a violation. Rather, he says that developers has a right to write non-free drivers to the kernel using modules ( http://linuxmafi…

That FSF page also claims that Perl programs that use GPL'd Perl modules are required to be licensed under the GPL, and assorted other absurdities (hint: if there is no copying or modification of something copyrighted, there can be no copyright violation).

Contrary to the FSF's apparent belief, dependency has nothing to do with derivation.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#160

Post by scott_karana »

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.

Other companies use binary blobs in the Linux Kernel by using a GPL-compatible shim driver.

Samsung would be in violation of the GPL if they do not publish the source to the SHIM in a compatible license, but that would imply nothing about the binary blob.

Disclaimer: I'm not even sure whether they use the shim workaround in this case.

Post reply on HN