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

171–180 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#171

Post by Dylan16807 »

skore wrote: post #166
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).

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 Zo…

I wonder why people are voting you down. The GP is definitely confusing GPL with AGPL.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#172

Post by foobarbazqux »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #170
foobarbazqux wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, because the person who snuck it out didn't have copyright permission from the company. Employees at most corporations don't own the code they write.

If this were legal, then it would also be legal for an outsider to hack Samsung and release their code under the GPL.

For licensing purposes, employees at companies do not have GPL code they are working on distributed to them by the company; they are part of the company.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#173

Post by Dylan16807 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #172
Dylan16807 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, because the person who snuck it out didn't have copyright permission from the company. Employees at most corporations don't own the code they write. If this were legal, then it would also be legal for an outsider to hack Samsung and release their code under the GPL. For licensing purposes, employees at companies do not have GPL code they are working on distributed to them by the company; they are part of the comp…

In the hypothetical, Samsung intentionally put it under GPL. It is truly and legitimately licensed GPL, they're just not giving it to the public at this moment.

I don't know how I can make it clearer.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#174

Post by foobarbazqux »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #173
foobarbazqux wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because the person who snuck it out didn't have copyright permission from the company. Employees at most corporations don't own the code they write. If this were legal, then it would also be legal for an outsider to hack Samsung and release their code under the GPL. For licensing purposes, employees at companies do not have GPL code they are working on distributed to them by the company; they are part of the comp…

In the hypothetical, Samsung intentionally put it under GPL. It is truly and legitimately licensed GPL, they're just not giving it to the public at this moment. I don't know how I can make it clearer.

Something doesn't truly become GPL until it is distributed, because the license is a contract between licensor and licensee. Only someone with copyright permission can distribute code. Samsung didn't grant copyright permission to its employees, nor did it distribute GPL code to its employees. (In the hypothetical.)

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#175

Post by freehunter »

r00fus wrote: post #164
freehunter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Seriously? You're calling Godwin just because I mentioned the word Nazi? Please do the world a favor and stop using that term unless you understand what it means. No one was compared to Nazis, no reference to genocide was mentioned, and it certainly was not flamebait. The point was that the world doesn't forget the negative associations of an organization just because four years have passed. Hyperbole can be a very effective way to make a point.

Godwin does not mean what you seem to think it means.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#176

Post by jlgreco »

fulafel wrote: post #80
josteink wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ROM scene has always been a grey (verging on black) area when it comes to IP Speak for yourself. There are two scenes: The binary modder scene, where people retro-fit vendor-created and provided firmware-images with their own modifications. Commonly referred to as "Photoshop ROMs". This scene is clearly grey at best. However, there is another scene: The one based on AOSP source and derivates of it. This scene l…

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.

> The open source subset of Android is not practically usable though.

And that will certainly remain the case if everybody ships their little backyard shed "rom" with proprietary bits included. If there is no demand for replacements, replacements will not be made.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#177

Post by freehunter »

brokenparser wrote: post #169
freehunter wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't get me started on the bullshit that is the browser ballot. Their anti-trust case in the US was at least based on something relevant to the PC market, not just a money-grab by a government board trying to prove its relevance.

You do have a point, but I don't think that diminishes my point. 4 years is not a long amount of time to forget the negative actions of an organization.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#178

Post by taeric »

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)

I just find it sad that I could live with this restriction if I could remove the Google apps I do not plan on ever making use of.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#179

Post by scott_karana »

brokenparser wrote: post #162
scott_karana wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Awesome. Thanks for clarifying that! :)

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#180

Post by phaemon »

bradleyjg wrote: post #156
phaemon wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I didn't reply to the original post. I replied to your statement: "If you disagree with it, you are free not to copyright your own works."

Any restriction on sharing information is a restriction on freedom of expression. After all, stopping people from repeating other people's speech is precisely the kind of censorship freedom of speech laws are intended to fight. Censorship is almost never used to suppress the original statement, only its repetition...

Post reply on HN