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

131–140 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#131

Post by burntsushi »

stonemetal wrote: post #90
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…

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."

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#132

Post by bjornsing »

siddboots wrote: post #120
scotty79 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically company can take your gpld code, extend it, slap their license on the whole thing it and redistiribute binaries without the source code and nobody can slap the gpl back on where it should be because it's a gray area?

You can't, in general, do that. The kernel developers and the FSF have always claimed that loadable modules (like the exFat driver) are "derived works", which has a specific meaning in copyright law. In particular, the GPL very clearly says that derived works must be re-licensed under GPL. The vendors claim that "derived works" doesn't include linked code, or plug-in patterns. They say that they aren't really releasi…

> The kernel developers and the FSF have always claimed that loadable modules (like the exFat driver) are "derived works"...

Not true [1].

1. See e.g. http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.....

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#133

Post by read_again »

scotty79 wrote: post #94
codgercoder wrote: post #8

GPL, and probably other licenses, were constructed to work with copyright law. Such cavalier dismissal (by rxrz) is disrespecting those who created the licenses, the legal system, and the open source community, at large. We live in the real world, not "The Matrix".

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 created artificially.

Anyway, you wouldn't want people to take your shirts away from you, and copyright holders may feel the same towards their work.

The second issue is fairness: if someone has to pay a certain amount to access copyrighted work, why others would not have to, under the same circumstances? Fairness is the motivating principle supporting the existence of the Law.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#134

Post by icebraining »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #110
crististm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not such a gray area as you think. Search for the readline license and what that meant to clisp. Hint: derivative work of a GPL code is GPL (although that was slightly different for clisp). You are free not have GPL stamp on your code as long as you keep it to yourself. If you distribute it to a third party you are automatically bound by GPL.

There is no gray area. Derivative works are GPL or illegal. But nothing physically forces people from breaking the law. You cannot GPL a piece of code against the author's will.

Nitpick: against the copyright holder's will. They're often not the same as the author (e.g., work for hire).

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#135

Post by stelonix »

maaaats wrote: post #43
skore wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh it gets better. I had to stop reading the thread on Phoronix out of fear that my brain would pop out of my head and leave for Portugal. > People with emotional insecurities are trying to make up something depressing and horrible, point a finger and make lots of noise. > For me it was just sad to see people complaining more often than being grateful or happy about something. > I hope they will patent and release a…

Wow, again. Also found: > Now, putting it publicly on github qualifies as distribution, and therefore this code is also under the GPLv2 license implicitly. The act has already been done, and even if it does contain copyrighted bits by MS, the released version is now forever GPL. so, yeah.. by this logic I can take my company's code, put it on GitHub under a GPL license and now everyone is free to use it under GPL. Do…

I believe he means that, once the copyright on the code runs out (in 120 or whatever ridiculous number of years the copyright monopoly was able to extend further), that version, which is illegal right now (and not legally under the GPL) will automatically become GPL'd.

This is an interesting take on copyright and licensing.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#136

Post by yareally »

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.

Sometimes I will use it in a conversation when referring to a third party unknown to the person I am talking to and the subject's gender has no bearing (like in my first comment).

For example, "Oh, I know a guy that knows X," "I know a guy that is a fan of X" or in a less positive manner "That guy just cut me off [on the freeway]!" (since you rarely see who it might be and their gender doesn't matter)

I could say "dude" as well, but sometimes dude might be too informal. I could reword it with a number of other pronouns, but it depends on context and whom one is talking to.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#137

Post by effn »

andreasvc wrote: post #46
effn wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The authors of GPL-licensed code has no say in how other people license their code they don't own the copyright on. Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.

By illegal you mean illegal to distribute. If Samsung used this code internally and it was leaked accidentally, they are not in violation of the GPL.

Yes, of course.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#138

Post by bradleyjg »

bxc89 wrote: post #20
codgercoder wrote: post #8

GPL, and probably other licenses, were constructed to work with copyright law. Such cavalier dismissal (by rxrz) is disrespecting those who created the licenses, the legal system, and the open source community, at large. We live in the real world, not "The Matrix".

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.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#139

Post by nullc »

nailer wrote: post #59
thomasjames wrote: post #4

The title makes it sound as though this has been accepted into the Linux kernel when in fact it has not been. It is designed to work with the Linux kernel but it is in no way associated with Linux. FUD much?

Is it possible that it was an accidental mistake, rather a deliberate attempt to spread 'Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt'? Be Civil. See http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Part of the potency of FUD is that it's so easily believed and you'll seldom ever hear FUD from someone who doesn't personnel believe it. It shouldn't be a personal insult for someone to call out potential FUD when they see it.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#140

Post by pnathan »

yareally wrote: post #114
jlgreco wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last point you raise is one of the reasons that I think the drive to bring as many "proverbial grandmothers" to Linux presents a very serious concern. Imagine if Linux distros started getting treated like Android does? Android got those legions of "regular" users and participants that everybody seems to want and it is not a pretty scene because of it.

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?

Post reply on HN