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

161–170 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#161

Post by scott_karana »

taeric wrote: post #104
rst wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The real issue there is that Android partitions its internal storage into System and "Internal SD" space.

So your 8GB phone will only have 2GB that can hold apps. It's awful.

(Apparently this depends on the phone and OS version to a degree. It's true on GT-i9100s running Android 4.0 at least, and true on all 2.x OSes)

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#162

Post by brokenparser »

scott_karana wrote: post #161
taeric wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The real issue there is that Android partitions its internal storage into System and "Internal SD" space. So your 8GB phone will only have 2GB that can hold apps. It's awful. (Apparently this depends on the phone and OS version to a degree. It's true on GT-i9100s running Android 4.0 at least, and true on all 2.x OSes)

Nexus devices use one big data partition for everything, so you won't have that problem.

Downside is, no more offline backups or increasing the storage capacity by a quick swap of the card.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#163

Post by bjornsing »

scott_karana wrote: post #160
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. Disclaim…

Usually that thin layer of source code is under a proprietary license as well. The main reason to have it is actually not legal but technical: distributing kernel modules in binary form (.ko) separately from the kernel itself is a pain in the arse (bordering on impossible) since they depend on the exact version of the kernel and in some cases even the build config (e.g. skbuff size may depend on #ifdefs).

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#164

Post by r00fus »

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.

A godwin already? Comparing IP violations to genocide or coercive monopolies just seem like complete hyperbole.

Can you please rephrase in a way that isn't flamebait?

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#165

Post by Dylan16807 »

adamzochowski wrote: post #154
Dylan16807 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. You're talking about modifications that aren't yet/ever released under the GPL. I'm asking what happens if it's already completely GPL, including modifications, and it gets leaked.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#166

Post by skore »

adamzochowski wrote: post #154
Dylan16807 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Complete and utter horseshit. What you're talking about in the last sentence is the Affero GPL.

The GPL states and has always stated: If you modify code that is licensed as GPL and want to share it, the modified version needs to be GPL as well ("share alike").

But: Nobody forces you to release anything. If you don't release software, you don't need to make a license for it. If you want, you can license it as "Adam Zochowski Super License 5000". Frame it and put it on your wall, nobody gives a damn.

The GPL only governs and can only govern what happens when you actually do release (GPLv3 uses the term "convey") software to other people.

Sidenote: This post again confirms Stallmans rule of thumb that anybody using the utterly corrupt term "Intellectual Property" is either a moron or trying to mislead you.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#167

Post by Dylan16807 »

anon1385 wrote: post #152
Dylan16807 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 in…

1. Even if that's the current legal theory it's bullshit, and I can run code without having copies in ram if I need to.

2. 'if they are permitted by copyright law' Fair Use is part of copyright law, has that specific defense been challenged when it comes to software execution and caches in RAM?

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#168

Post by foobarbazqux »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #165
adamzochowski wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. You're talking about modifications that aren't yet/ever released under the GPL. I'm asking what happens if it's already completely GPL, including modifications , and it gets leaked.

Nothing happens. The GPL is built on top of copyright. You cannot license code that you do not have copyright permission for under the GPL.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#169

Post by brokenparser »

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.

Yeah no, MSFT was fined €561M as recently as March this year on account of failing to comply with an agreement made in 2009 (to offer users a choice of web browser) following an antitrust case settlement to the tune of €860M in 2007 and a complaint from Opera Software about the missing choice screen.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#170

Post by Dylan16807 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #168
Dylan16807 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. You're talking about modifications that aren't yet/ever released under the GPL. I'm asking what happens if it's already completely GPL, including modifications , and it gets leaked.

Nothing happens. The GPL is built on top of copyright. You cannot license code that you do not have copyright permission for under the GPL.

Wow, this conversation sure is going in circles.

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

As in, IF Samsung put version 1 under GPL, owning the copyright, on purpose, but they were keeping it hidden and someone snuck it out, would it be okay to use?

Post reply on HN