Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:27 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #78

reginaldjcooper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasting man-years on reimplementing software is not a large enough problem to decide that authors no longer have any rights with their product.

but it is a large enough problem. Wasting man years is precisely the problem. Our collective knowledge is boundless, but time is finite. See the problem here? Why would we want to waste the effort of future generations with the problems of yesterday? So that an individual can live more comfortably with exclusive privileges to something that benefits all of mankind? We shouldn't be working towards selfishness and arbi…

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:33 PM UTC

yareally wrote: post #10

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".

Sadly, this is a typical thing that goes on in the Android User development community. Lots of casual attitudes by hobbyists that modify the Linux Kernel and rattle off some sort of excuse for not posting their sources while distributing binary copies. Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, thinking that because they changed a few lines of code, they can claim to own the license to the software now…

Post by venomsnake » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:38 PM UTC

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...

Post by aroch » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:40 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #89

aroch wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that so many prebaked ROMs are distributed though megaupload-alikes is a bit of a giveaway as to the general philosophy of that community. What? Hosting (relatively) large files, on services that can deliver those around the world at faster than dialup is now some how bad? So I suppose all those companies using CDNs are also horrible and despicable. I mean, how dare they use servers that are well connected!

Less fly-by-night-ish projects seem to have little trouble finding mirroring that 1) isn't shared by so much warez 2) doesn't make me visit a webpage and make me do a CAPTCHA, 3) doesn't blast me with shady as hell popups and advertising.

Post by scotty79 » Tue, Jul 23, 2013, 1:42 PM UTC

regularfry wrote: post #82

crististm wrote: post #45

If it's a derivative work of the Linux kernel (links to internal kernel API) it should be GPL. If Samsung distribute it to users then it should do that under GPL. Samsung should be the first to relicense it.

Morally you might be right. Legally it's a grey area, and practically it's almost certainly a no-go.