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

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#191

Post by read_again »

scotty79 wrote: post #186
read_again wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> some rich people did to get richer

As I said, it all comes from scarcity. Things that are abundant are monetary worthless, and if everything is free, then people don't need to make money, ergo no copyright anymore (there's a slight simplification here actually, because copyrights also grant control, which is actively thought). That said, while the system is mostly used by the richest, poor people can profit from it as well, if they manage to produce valuable IP.

The problem that we really have here imho is that code is just logic written in an often clever way, like a math theorem. Do we want to have these things protected by copyrights or patents? Does it make sense? That's the real question behind the issue at hand I believe.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#192

Post by read_again »

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…

GP wording was perhaps a bit awkward, but I don't think he meant that modifications had to be released unilaterally: He just indicated the difference between gplv2 and v3 in the situations when the licenses force the release of the modifications (ie. when distributing the program in non source form).

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#193

Post by teddyh »

tbrownaw wrote: post #159
belorn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Since FSF for years has had (and still have) lawyers advising them that this is indeed the case, what is your authority to claim otherwise?

Or, in other words, citation needed.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#194

Post by siddboots »

bjornsing wrote: post #132
siddboots wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.... .

Ah, sorry. I should not have been so blanket.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#195

Post by reginaldjcooper »

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.

First of all, it's completely ridiculous to compare copyright with slavery.

You were never going to express yourself in exactly that manner, so from a practical standpoint copyright isn't preventing you from doing anything at all. It's a good compromise; how else do we prevent publishers and software companies from grabbing up indie work and selling it without compensating the creator? I don't understand being totally against copyright.

The area where it's going wrong is that Disney and the labels have big interests in extending copyright to ridiculous lengths and strengthening it to the extent that it's an anchor dragging behind any startup that wants to compete in that industry. We should be able to share movies and books with our friends and families. In their perfect world, every viewer would pay a fee for every viewing.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#196

Post by Dylan16807 »

dllthomas wrote: post #185
Dylan16807 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I could run it directly out of a ramdisk, or maybe transfer it to an embedded processor that can run it directly off the flash chip without even a processor cache. There's a whole variety of ridiculous things I could do to avoid the ridiculous restriction.

In practice I would trust fair use and try to use such as a defense if sued.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#197

Post by Dylan16807 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #187
Dylan16807 wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, althou…

I just find it very strange that you can't apply a license-for-distribution without actually distributing. That means if I want to make sure a piece of software is GPL, and nobody can take that away in the future, I have to perform an action such as uploading to github or burning a single CD and giving it to a homeless person. And somehow giving away that first single copy is what makes the GPL kick in for all other copies in the world.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#198

Post by dllthomas »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #196
dllthomas wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I could run it directly out of a ramdisk, or maybe transfer it to an embedded processor that can run it directly off the flash chip without even a processor cache. There's a whole variety of ridiculous things I could do to avoid the ridiculous restriction. In practice I would trust fair use and try to use such as a defense if sued.

> I could run it directly out of a ramdisk

Hard to do when you were shipped a DVD.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#199

Post by foobarbazqux »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #197
foobarbazqux wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, althou…

I just find it very strange that you can't apply a license-for-distribution without actually distributing. That means if I want to make sure a piece of software is GPL, and nobody can take that away in the future, I have to perform an action such as uploading to github or burning a single CD and giving it to a homeless person. And somehow giving away that first single copy is what makes the GPL kick in for all other…

That's still not quite correct. A license is a contract. It requires two parties. Every time somebody gives GPL software to somebody else, the contract is entered into and the license is granted. Giving away the first copy only establishes a license between you and the first recipient. That recipient in turn grants a license to whoever he gives it to, if and when he chooses to do so. In particular, I cannot demand that the first recipient give me a copy of the source code unless I have been granted license to the software by him.

If you want to be really sure a piece of software is GPL, it would probably be alright to include a file in your source tree on your harddrive saying that whoever finds it is free to make a copy of the project for themselves and consider that you have distributed it to them. It's about the clear intent to distribute.

Re: Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

#200

Post by Dylan16807 »

foobarbazqux wrote: post #199
Dylan16807 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just find it very strange that you can't apply a license-for-distribution without actually distributing. That means if I want to make sure a piece of software is GPL, and nobody can take that away in the future, I have to perform an action such as uploading to github or burning a single CD and giving it to a homeless person. And somehow giving away that first single copy is what makes the GPL kick in for all other…

That's still not quite correct. A license is a contract. It requires two parties. Every time somebody gives GPL software to somebody else, the contract is entered into and the license is granted. Giving away the first copy only establishes a license between you and the first recipient. That recipient in turn grants a license to whoever he gives it to, if and when he chooses to do so. In particular, I cannot demand th…

> Giving away the first copy only establishes a license between you and the first recipient. That recipient in turn grants a license to whoever he gives it to, if and when he chooses to do so.

That's a logical way of looking at it, but it disagrees with the GPL FAQ. Note especially "If the version has been released elsewhere, then the thief probably does have the right to make copies and redistribute them under the GPL".

Plus, you can have a unilateral contract that's open to anyone willing to accept the terms. You don't have to take any action per person to 'establish' it.

Post reply on HN