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

181–190 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#181

Post by ensignavenger »

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.

Pointing out the past and claiming that things are still that way are different things. Clearly, Volkswagen is no longer building vehicles for the Nazis. It is still an interesting historical fact.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#182

Post by scott_karana »

taeric wrote: post #178
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)

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.

You can, depending on a few factors. Applications like Titanium Backup should point you in the right direction. :)

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#183

Post by brokenparser »

freehunter wrote: post #177
brokenparser wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I'm sorry. It appears I accidentally fed prose into a markov chain.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#184

Post by Dylan16807 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #174
Dylan16807 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

So if I write a piece of software, burn it onto a hundred disks, put the disks in a nicely labeled basket for people to take, go to lunch, and people grab some, at what point does the license kick in?

I find strange your statement that there is no license despite every file header (hypothetically) claiming a license, and this being authorized by the entire management chain.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#185

Post by dllthomas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #167
anon1385 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Regarding 1, I really don't believe you can run code without copies, or copies of a derivitave work, being made in the process.

That said, I can't read a book without reflections in my eyes...

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#186

Post by scotty79 »

read_again wrote: post #133
scotty79 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with disrespecting those who created the licenses, and the legal system? Maybe if we were disrespecting them sufficiently early on we wouldn't be in a mess we are currently in and the open source community wouldn't need to have a special name because it would be just called developer community? > We live in the real world, not "The Matrix". So why does it feel like it's the other way around? Why does it…

Property is an inherent human thing. Likewise, people want to be remunerated for their work. Hence copyright. If scarcity was non existent, then we wouldn't have that problem... Actually, it would still be here: Van Gogh artwork is unique, and this can be expanded virtually to anything, including the shirt you are wearing, since you're the only one to wear it. You might see where this leads to. Scarcity can always be…

And then there's science. People are paid to work on things or do it because they want to do it. Once they do something valuable they publish it and everyone can build upon their work.

Openness gave us modern world. Copyright gave us Hollywood and Sony Music.

Property is inherent thing. Not only human. Monkeys also want to own things and they don't like thieves. But extending physical property qualities to creations of human mind is just something some rich people did to get richer.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#187

Post by foobarbazqux »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #184
foobarbazqux wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

So if I write a piece of software, burn it onto a hundred disks, put the disks in a nicely labeled basket for people to take, go to lunch, and people grab some, at what point does the license kick in? I find strange your statement that there is no license despite every file header (hypothetically) claiming a license, and this being authorized by the entire management chain.

In the example with you putting the disks in a basket, you've intentionally made them available for people that are not your employees to take, so you're distributing them. The license kicks in when one is taken. It's analogous to downloading software.

The point is that for a license to be binding it has to be offered willingly. If I sign a blank check and you steal it from me, filling out $1000 and your name, although you'll be able to cash it, you have no right to the money, and I can undo the action.

The reason internal code is special is because the employees are not considered individuals to whom the company has distributed the software. Instead they are a part of the company.

I identified some relevant questions in the GPL FAQ. I believe that the first one and third one are what you care about.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#StolenCopy

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePo...

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributi...

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DistributeSubsidia...

I hope that helps. The FSF might respond if you write to them, it's worth a shot if you're still not convinced.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#188

Post by r00fus »

freehunter wrote: post #175
r00fus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Not sure if you're trolling, but hyperbole involving a comparison to Nazi's is surely a godwin. Go on, read up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card"."

Your point is obscured by making a hyperbolic claim that ignores the actual impact of the wrong action.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#189

Post by freehunter »

r00fus wrote: post #188
freehunter wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Not sure if you're trolling, but hyperbole involving a comparison to Nazi's is surely a godwin. Go on, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law "Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as "playing the Hitler card"." Your point is obscured by making a hyperbolic claim that ignores the actual…

Yes. Comparison. That's the difference. I didn't say "Cyanogenmod is like Hitler". I said "IBM did work for Hitler 60 years ago, and people still remember that." If anything, I compared Cyanogenmod to IBM.

Using the word Nazi or Hitler does not equal a Godwin. The fact that this needs to be explained so damn often really just shows that we need a new law. Freehunter's Law says that any discussion that mentions the words Nazi or Hitler will invariably get someone to invoke Godwin's Law improperly and make a fool out of himself.

Again: Never made a comparison to Hitler. If you're speaking English as a second language, I'll forgive you.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#190

Post by read_again »

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 that's the legal side of this. You can compile and run GPL software on your computer without agreeing to the licensing terms, but you may not do it. It is very unlikely that someone will check your HDs for offending uses, and besides, any use of GPLed software assumes an implicit acceptance of its license, so if such a check is happening, you would have to be there to say: "I have it but I am not agreeing to the terms". That sounds a bit silly doesn't it?

That's how the rules have been made, and not complying could be assimilated to piracy.

Post reply on HN