14 ms·

Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

164 points by synchronise 13y ago

TempleOS 13y ago
made my own FAT32-- doesn't support short tilde names. Got spec from Microsoft. Got original ATA usage from Linux--just the magic numbers to make ATA work. Linux got the numbers from ATA specs. Now, I have ATA specs. Do you really want to fight God in court? He will kill you. God says... C:\TAD\Text\DARWIN.TXT ered very distinct from each other, take the rank of species. The truth of the principle that the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure, is seen under many natural circumstances. In an extremely small area, especially if freely open to immigration, and where the contest between individual and individual must be very severe, we always find great diversity in its inhabitants. For instance, I found that a piece of turf, three feet by four in size, which had
kbar13 13y ago
the ways of the tin foil is strong with the repo's maintainer.
- jezfromfuture 13y ago
  Do you really think its worth saying this considering how much of the tinfoil conspiracy shit has become reality.....
thomasjames 13y ago
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?
- synchronise 13y ago
  I've updated the title to hopefully dispel any unintended interpretations.
- gngeal 13y ago
  Did Samsung, in fact, distribute the code in Android devices? If the answer is "yes", wouldn't that make it GPLd?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    Not necessarily, no. There is a long history of people releasing closed source drivers, particularly on embedded platforms. So far as I can tell the kernel devs think it's harmful and A Bad Thing (TM), but not a violation. Also as has been pointed out below, it wouldn't automatically make it GPL. It would make it in violation of GPL and releasing under GPL would fix the violation, but it wouldn't make it GPL.
    - regularfry 13y ago
      There's a 10-year-old post to LKML from Linus saying the GPL nature of kernel modules is a huge grey area. I don't think it's been resolved since then.
      - susi22 13y ago
        Correct. Link: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
  - zokier 13y ago
    > If the answer is "yes", wouldn't that make it GPLd? No.
  - belorn 13y ago
    As the others have said, no it would not make it GPL. However, the customers who bought such devices could try sue for feeling mislead as a customer. If Samsung ever used the word free, open, or even linux, they might be liable under false advertising consumer protection laws. Keyword here is might, and is likely to vary based on where you live. If enough people did this, samsung would likely feeling pressured to relicense the necessary (sold) kernel modules as GPL.
  - 13y ago
- nailer 13y ago
  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 http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - nullc 13y ago
    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.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
fpgeek 13y ago
The github issue is amazing reading: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5 https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5 Normally you expect the copyright issues to be going in the other direction at gpl-violations, but kudos to them for noticing the problem and dealing with it quickly.
- maaaats 13y ago
  > Basically, I did microsoft's job, they even owe me money for the time I've spent fixing the code to work on modern kernels and "throwing the GPL tag on it". Wow.
  - skore 13y ago
    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 license on negative thinking.[0] Actually, the entire Phoronix thread is an amazing display of incompetence. > Were do you assume "this source code is not under GPLv2"? Source of this please? This implementation (code) was on github, that says something to you? [1] My mind is boggled so hard right now. This better be a conspiracy to discredit FOSS, otherwise I'm losing yet another piece of trust in human sanity. [0] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT&p=339638#post339638 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux... [1] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT&p=339294#post339294 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux...
    - maaaats 13y ago
      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. Doesn't matter that I don't have the right to license it..
codgercoder 13y ago
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".
- yareally 13y ago
  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. I'd say that is probably much more prevalent since there's a general assumption by many that the license most Android based software uses, Apache 2.0 means "do whatever you want". Even worse is the fact that many users in the community are also quick to defend them blindly because they know little of development and why following licenses matter (even after all the facts are laid out and explained).
  - Svip 13y ago
    > Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, [...] Hmmm... https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-21393678 https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-2... : > And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl. Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.
    - vog 13y ago
      Among all aspects of that discussion, the author's gender is about the most uninteresting detail. "Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position."
      - yareally 13y ago
        Agreed. I didn't even take the time to find out what their gender was since it's not any related issue. "Guy" was just used in a generic sense[1]. [1] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-singular-pronouns?page=all http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-s...
kawsper 13y ago
When the code is out there, is it possible that a third-party will modify the existing exFAT projects based on this "leak", and get them to work properly and out of userspace?
- drrotmos 13y ago
  It would be very bad if they do, since that would open the existing exFAT projects up to legal action. Anyone who has read the Samsung code is "tainted" with the knowledge of Samsung's proprietary techniques which may be copyrighted, so those people may well introduce copyright violations into the code. In clean-room reverse engineering projects, the people who are examining the system to be reverse engineered are never the same people that actually write the new clean code, thus avoiding the taint of proprietary knowledge.
  - ordinary 13y ago
    Not just copyrighted. Microsoft claims a whole bunch of patents related to exFAT. This means you can't legally implement exFAT without a license to those patents, even if you've never even seen the Samsung code. This is the reason why exfat-fuse is not part of any large Linux distributions.
    - thwarted 13y ago
      It's also most likely one of the reasons exfat even exists: so Microsoft can exercise some control and have licensing income from a filesystem format being in common use, which they don't have/lost with FAT.
  - VLM 13y ago
    I'm highly curious about this from a strategic long term point, not a tactical individual issue. Who is rxrz? Before June 24th, he/she/it (it aka an alias) didn't exist on github. If this is someones paid project (who's paying?) to disrupt exFAT work, its doing pretty well, only took about a month to possibly destroy the whole area of operation. Effective. Probably pretty cheap. So, follow the money. Who benefits? Could they (or a subcontractor of a subcontractor, etc) be hiring someone to sabotage a project? There's a critical matter of identity here. We're discussing this as if its a J random hacker individual scenario. It might not be, and there's no reason to suggest it goes either way. Also looking at the github record this individual has apparently never done anything else, and didn't "exist" until recently, which is ... odd. This situation needs to be looked into. I would give it maybe 75% chance of pure cluelessness and flaming, and maybe 25% chance of being something... more complicated; or worse.
foxhill 13y ago
you know, it'd be interesting to see what the open source community could produce if we all took his approach to licences for a little while.
- Nursie 13y ago
  A mess of lawsuits, withdrawn devices and shut down code repos most likely.
  - VLM 13y ago
    And no users. Everywhere I've worked since the mid 90s, internal and external license compliancy enforcer-types have always left me and my stuff alone when I print out the DFSG and a couple of the DFSG compliant licenses, show them we run Debian, and at work only use Main not Non-Free. I've never had a "license compliancy audit" run longer than 30 minutes or so and maybe two dozen pieces of paper. Usually much less. Its a measurable financial advantage of free software. You should see the labor and expense nightmare my proprietary coworkers have gone thru to "prove" they have the right to a copy of windows and office and other stuff. Its very expensive to use proprietary software legally at a business, and I'm not just talking about purchase price! If I could no longer use free software because there no longer is any, I'd have to switch to something involving less legal risk. Unfortunately probably MS products, apple being a bit too rich for their blood. It would be a nightmare conversion, and a much higher TCO leading to longer term financial issues.
  - foxhill 13y ago
    i didn't necessarily mean for practical use, i just meant, what sort of finished (hah) product could come out at the end!
    - Nursie 13y ago
      We might have better interop with proprietary software. Maybe. It's possible that the BSDs would have more hardware support as they could just borrow it from Linux. Companies would probably keep an even tighter guard on their code. They may stop contributing to FOSS completely without the protection of the GPL. We'd probably find all sorts of weird binaries being thrown around the place, as seems to happen in the android scene, where people just splice stuff together without considering any of this stuff. Support and consistency would be a nightmare. People would be less able to build on each others work as there would be no necessity for anyone to publish anything if they didn't want to or couldn't be bothered. I don't think it would be any sort of utopia.
ars 13y ago
"Originally, it was either public domain or GPL." He's claiming that this is actually GPL code that Samsung claimed as proprietary (which they can't do). Is he wrong?
- Nursie 13y ago
  It's hard to tell - there doesn't seem to be any proof of this and in the case of leaked code I'd be wanting proof.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    I think judge should force Samsung to release all the information they have on history of this code. After all Samsung is suspected of violating the license. Shouldn't they be able to prove copyright before they can claim it?
    - Nursie 13y ago
      The only reference I've seen to suspected license violations is the assertion in the git history that it was at one time under GPL or maybe public domain. There's no provenance here. I doubt this will ever get before a judge, more likely a combination of DMCA takedowns and exclusion from the mainline kernel.
bxc89 13y ago
I agree with the actions of the repo maintainer. Why should we play along with unjust copyright laws? GPL sheep are just part of the problem, creating their own nest of licensing woes everytime you touch their code.
- icebraining 13y ago
  Even if you don't want to play along with copyright laws - and I can perfectly understand why one wouldn't - that's not a reason to deceive people by claiming the code to be GPL licensed and make them liable if they redistribute it. If one wants to say "fuck copyright", putting a copyright license in the code is not the really the most appropriate way.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    I think deception is a valid tool for creating chaos and chaos is a valid tool for bringing down systems.
- Tehnix 13y ago
  Obviously a troll account since it was created for the specific purpose of posting that comment (created 1 hour ago, posted 1 hour ago)...
mtgx 13y ago
Why not just use this? http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/2142213/open-source-exfat-file-system-reaches-10-status http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/2142213/open-source...
- exDM69 13y ago
  Apparently the Fuse-based driver hasn't got very good performance and is not quite production quality yet (according to the Phoronix article). In addition, the person who put the leaked driver on GitHub seems to have a negative opinion on Fuse (in some of the forum threads where he's ranting), which does not seem to be based on facts.
ckozlowski 13y ago
There's a severe fault in rxrz's logic here, if I'm following this correctly: "This code was originally under a Samsung proprietary license" Wrong. exfat_version.h:/* - 2012.04.02 : P1 : Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary / this is version p2. I could've technically stripped those comments and changed the version number to / - 2012.02.10 : Release Version 1.1.0 */ But I didn't. Originally, it was either public domain or GPL. Nobody would've ever found out by the code alone, which version this actually is." Let me pull out the key statement here: "Originally, it was either public domain or GPL." That's an assumption. Samsung placed a license on it, and rxrz assumes that prior to that, it must have been GPL or public domain. However, the driver was unknown and didn't exist prior to rxrz's release. It seems likely something could be classified as public domain when it was kept under lock and key. My guess is, this was given a license when the code was finished and bundled for distribution. Assuming otherwise seems dangerous, in my opinion.
kristofferR 13y ago
Samsung may not have intended it as such, but aren't all derivatives of GPL-licenced code also GPL by definition?
- Nursie 13y ago
  The questions are - is it a derivative of GPL code, and if so have they distributed binaries? I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    Those are technically GPL violations, but kernel devs haven't (yet) complained much.
    - agf 13y ago
      That is absolutely not the community consensus. Linus and the kernel community as a whole have taken the position that this is specifically allowed by the GPL as using a public interface isn't creating a derivative work.
      - kristofferR 13y ago
        Linus Torvalds disagrees with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_and_firmware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License...
        belorn 13y ago
        If you use Wikipedia as source, please verify that the section you are referring has a source. Both now has citation needed tags on them.
      - 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- Tehnix 13y ago
  Credit should be put where credit is due
crististm 13y ago
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.
- regularfry 13y ago
  Morally you might be right. Legally it's a grey area, and practically it's almost certainly a no-go.
  - scotty79 13y ago
    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?
    - regularfry 13y ago
      Nope, and that's as far as we can tell not what happened here.
    - Wilya 13y ago
      This is not about the GPL'd code people take from you, it's about what they add/change to this code. Whether you can directly slap the GPL back on these modifications is very discutable. You can most certainly sue them for breaching the license, though. (and, like sister comment says, this is not what's happening here anyway)
    - siddboots 13y ago
      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 releasing their own kernel, just releasing the stock kernel with a bunch of proprietary applications on top, along with their proprietary kernel module. Like that guy said, it's a gray area.
rquirk 13y ago
Isn't this is a general trend with Android/Cyanogenmod hackers? If you go on something like xda-developers then there's a sticky saying "please don't post GPL violations". Early Cyanogen releases were fast and loose with redistribution of Google proprietary apps, which got the author in a spot of trouble IIRC. Right now the distribution of these ROMS is IMO pretty suspect - they include whole swathes of binary blobs that they really shouldn't be redistributing willy nilly. If you want the proprietary pieces that belong to the manufacturer of your phone, you should have to pull them off yourself. The ROM creators shouldn't be pulling these bits off of their phones and re-distributing them. 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.
- Supermighty 13y ago
  Open source is awesome, yay! It's given Google, Samsung and android device manufactures a hugely successful platform that they would have otherwise had to build from the ground up. And how do they repay the community? Binary blobs. While staying true to the letter of the license they circumvent the spirit of it. I don't condone GPL violations. I also don't care about distributing binary blobs. Without them there wouldn't be alternative android distros.
- bad_user 13y ago
  Cyanogenmod ROMs aren't distributed with Google's apps anymore. If you want Google's Play store and Gmail, one needs to download and install a separate archive (I just did that yesterday :)) Of course, the distribution of that archive is still suspect. The licensing of those apps is the only leverage Google has for controlling the companies that distribute Android, like Samsung. It is meant for the likes of Samsung and HTC, not Cyanogenmod, which is why I think Google lets it be for now. On the other hand if you want to use bare-bones Android, the biggest pain one experiences is the lack of Google Play. I can live without Gmail, I can live without Google Maps, but unfortunately most apps are only on Google Play, which is awkward, given that as a publisher with Android it isn't a big effort to publish apps on your own website, in addition to Google Play.
  - 13y ago
giis 13y ago
latest commit says "Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary" https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/commit/dbf695748ab5e90a48cf9987d84c3d8a3177491f https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/commit/dbf695748ab5e90a...
bjornsing 13y ago
This is a quite interesting case from a legal standpoint. IANAL but my 5 cents are: * If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel. * If so then these two sections of the GPL seem relevant: > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. * I'm not absolutely sure what that means for rxrz. Section 6 seems to imply that rxrz may have a license to the driver, and that that license is indeed the GPL. On the other hand section 4 seems to imply that the redistribution to rxrz was "void". Does that mean rxrz does not have the rights under section 6? If I where rxrz I would at least toy with this idea: a) wait for the DMCA take down notice, b) challenge it claiming to have a license under section 6 of the GPL and c) hope that Samsung does not have the nerve to go to court and risk a decision that would clarify that their license to the Linux kernel has been irreversibly revoked. :) But where does that leave us concerning legality? Is it clear that what rxrz has done is illegal?
- Nursie 13y ago
  >> If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Did Samsung really distribute the source if it was published by accident by one employee? Even if they did, it's under a proprietary license and it's not clear that proprietary kernel modules are necessarily derivative works, they are commonplace. Even if they are derivative that may make Samsung in violation of the GPL but not actually make their code covered (these are be separate issues). And even if they are in violation, this usually has to be challenged by a copyright holder, not simply by a recipient of the binaries. And that's if rxrv even received any binaries... Section 6 is interesting there - "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." I could see a lawyer arguing that the "Program" in clause 1 and 2 are the same, but if you distribute a work based on the Program the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program itself but not the work based on the Program, as that is not enumerated in clause 2. And this is before we even get into the patent violations that any use of such code involves.

164 points by synchronise 13y ago

made my own FAT32-- doesn't support short tilde names. Got spec from Microsoft. Got original ATA usage from Linux--just the magic numbers to make ATA work. Linux got the numbers from ATA specs. Now, I have ATA specs. Do you really want to fight God in court? He will kill you. God says... C:\TAD\Text\DARWIN.TXT ered very distinct from each other, take the rank of species. The truth of the principle that the greatest amount of life can be supported by great diversification of structure, is seen under many natural circumstances. In an extremely small area, especially if freely open to immigration, and where the contest between individual and individual must be very severe, we always find great diversity in its inhabitants. For instance, I found that a piece of turf, three feet by four in size, which had

kbar13 13y ago

the ways of the tin foil is strong with the repo's maintainer.

jezfromfuture 13y ago
Do you really think its worth saying this considering how much of the tinfoil conspiracy shit has become reality.....

thomasjames 13y ago

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?

synchronise 13y ago
I've updated the title to hopefully dispel any unintended interpretations.
gngeal 13y ago
Did Samsung, in fact, distribute the code in Android devices? If the answer is "yes", wouldn't that make it GPLd?
- Nursie 13y ago
  Not necessarily, no. There is a long history of people releasing closed source drivers, particularly on embedded platforms. So far as I can tell the kernel devs think it's harmful and A Bad Thing (TM), but not a violation. Also as has been pointed out below, it wouldn't automatically make it GPL. It would make it in violation of GPL and releasing under GPL would fix the violation, but it wouldn't make it GPL.
  - regularfry 13y ago
    There's a 10-year-old post to LKML from Linus saying the GPL nature of kernel modules is a huge grey area. I don't think it's been resolved since then.
    - susi22 13y ago
      Correct. Link: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
- zokier 13y ago
  > If the answer is "yes", wouldn't that make it GPLd? No.
- belorn 13y ago
  As the others have said, no it would not make it GPL. However, the customers who bought such devices could try sue for feeling mislead as a customer. If Samsung ever used the word free, open, or even linux, they might be liable under false advertising consumer protection laws. Keyword here is might, and is likely to vary based on where you live. If enough people did this, samsung would likely feeling pressured to relicense the necessary (sold) kernel modules as GPL.
- 13y ago
nailer 13y ago
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 http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- nullc 13y ago
  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.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

fpgeek 13y ago

The github issue is amazing reading: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5 https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5 Normally you expect the copyright issues to be going in the other direction at gpl-violations, but kudos to them for noticing the problem and dealing with it quickly.

maaaats 13y ago
> Basically, I did microsoft's job, they even owe me money for the time I've spent fixing the code to work on modern kernels and "throwing the GPL tag on it". Wow.
- skore 13y ago
  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 license on negative thinking.[0] Actually, the entire Phoronix thread is an amazing display of incompetence. > Were do you assume "this source code is not under GPLv2"? Source of this please? This implementation (code) was on github, that says something to you? [1] My mind is boggled so hard right now. This better be a conspiracy to discredit FOSS, otherwise I'm losing yet another piece of trust in human sanity. [0] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT&p=339638#post339638 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux... [1] http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT&p=339294#post339294 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux...
  - maaaats 13y ago
    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. Doesn't matter that I don't have the right to license it..

codgercoder 13y ago

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".

yareally 13y ago
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. I'd say that is probably much more prevalent since there's a general assumption by many that the license most Android based software uses, Apache 2.0 means "do whatever you want". Even worse is the fact that many users in the community are also quick to defend them blindly because they know little of development and why following licenses matter (even after all the facts are laid out and explained).
- Svip 13y ago
  > Others end up "relicensing" similar to the guy on github, [...] Hmmm... https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-21393678 https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5#issuecomment-2... : > And I don't need any permissions from anybody, I'm a big girl. Fun fact: Females also do stupid stuff.
  - vog 13y ago
    Among all aspects of that discussion, the author's gender is about the most uninteresting detail. "Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not criteria such as degrees, age, race, sex, or position."
    - yareally 13y ago
      Agreed. I didn't even take the time to find out what their gender was since it's not any related issue. "Guy" was just used in a generic sense[1]. [1] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-singular-pronouns?page=all http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/generic-s...

kawsper 13y ago

When the code is out there, is it possible that a third-party will modify the existing exFAT projects based on this "leak", and get them to work properly and out of userspace?

drrotmos 13y ago
It would be very bad if they do, since that would open the existing exFAT projects up to legal action. Anyone who has read the Samsung code is "tainted" with the knowledge of Samsung's proprietary techniques which may be copyrighted, so those people may well introduce copyright violations into the code. In clean-room reverse engineering projects, the people who are examining the system to be reverse engineered are never the same people that actually write the new clean code, thus avoiding the taint of proprietary knowledge.
- ordinary 13y ago
  Not just copyrighted. Microsoft claims a whole bunch of patents related to exFAT. This means you can't legally implement exFAT without a license to those patents, even if you've never even seen the Samsung code. This is the reason why exfat-fuse is not part of any large Linux distributions.
  - thwarted 13y ago
    It's also most likely one of the reasons exfat even exists: so Microsoft can exercise some control and have licensing income from a filesystem format being in common use, which they don't have/lost with FAT.
- VLM 13y ago
  I'm highly curious about this from a strategic long term point, not a tactical individual issue. Who is rxrz? Before June 24th, he/she/it (it aka an alias) didn't exist on github. If this is someones paid project (who's paying?) to disrupt exFAT work, its doing pretty well, only took about a month to possibly destroy the whole area of operation. Effective. Probably pretty cheap. So, follow the money. Who benefits? Could they (or a subcontractor of a subcontractor, etc) be hiring someone to sabotage a project? There's a critical matter of identity here. We're discussing this as if its a J random hacker individual scenario. It might not be, and there's no reason to suggest it goes either way. Also looking at the github record this individual has apparently never done anything else, and didn't "exist" until recently, which is ... odd. This situation needs to be looked into. I would give it maybe 75% chance of pure cluelessness and flaming, and maybe 25% chance of being something... more complicated; or worse.

foxhill 13y ago

you know, it'd be interesting to see what the open source community could produce if we all took his approach to licences for a little while.

Nursie 13y ago
A mess of lawsuits, withdrawn devices and shut down code repos most likely.
- VLM 13y ago
  And no users. Everywhere I've worked since the mid 90s, internal and external license compliancy enforcer-types have always left me and my stuff alone when I print out the DFSG and a couple of the DFSG compliant licenses, show them we run Debian, and at work only use Main not Non-Free. I've never had a "license compliancy audit" run longer than 30 minutes or so and maybe two dozen pieces of paper. Usually much less. Its a measurable financial advantage of free software. You should see the labor and expense nightmare my proprietary coworkers have gone thru to "prove" they have the right to a copy of windows and office and other stuff. Its very expensive to use proprietary software legally at a business, and I'm not just talking about purchase price! If I could no longer use free software because there no longer is any, I'd have to switch to something involving less legal risk. Unfortunately probably MS products, apple being a bit too rich for their blood. It would be a nightmare conversion, and a much higher TCO leading to longer term financial issues.
- foxhill 13y ago
  i didn't necessarily mean for practical use, i just meant, what sort of finished (hah) product could come out at the end!
  - Nursie 13y ago
    We might have better interop with proprietary software. Maybe. It's possible that the BSDs would have more hardware support as they could just borrow it from Linux. Companies would probably keep an even tighter guard on their code. They may stop contributing to FOSS completely without the protection of the GPL. We'd probably find all sorts of weird binaries being thrown around the place, as seems to happen in the android scene, where people just splice stuff together without considering any of this stuff. Support and consistency would be a nightmare. People would be less able to build on each others work as there would be no necessity for anyone to publish anything if they didn't want to or couldn't be bothered. I don't think it would be any sort of utopia.

ars 13y ago

"Originally, it was either public domain or GPL." He's claiming that this is actually GPL code that Samsung claimed as proprietary (which they can't do). Is he wrong?

Nursie 13y ago
It's hard to tell - there doesn't seem to be any proof of this and in the case of leaked code I'd be wanting proof.
- scotty79 13y ago
  I think judge should force Samsung to release all the information they have on history of this code. After all Samsung is suspected of violating the license. Shouldn't they be able to prove copyright before they can claim it?
  - Nursie 13y ago
    The only reference I've seen to suspected license violations is the assertion in the git history that it was at one time under GPL or maybe public domain. There's no provenance here. I doubt this will ever get before a judge, more likely a combination of DMCA takedowns and exclusion from the mainline kernel.

bxc89 13y ago

I agree with the actions of the repo maintainer. Why should we play along with unjust copyright laws? GPL sheep are just part of the problem, creating their own nest of licensing woes everytime you touch their code.

icebraining 13y ago
Even if you don't want to play along with copyright laws - and I can perfectly understand why one wouldn't - that's not a reason to deceive people by claiming the code to be GPL licensed and make them liable if they redistribute it. If one wants to say "fuck copyright", putting a copyright license in the code is not the really the most appropriate way.
- scotty79 13y ago
  I think deception is a valid tool for creating chaos and chaos is a valid tool for bringing down systems.
Tehnix 13y ago
Obviously a troll account since it was created for the specific purpose of posting that comment (created 1 hour ago, posted 1 hour ago)...

mtgx 13y ago

Why not just use this? http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/2142213/open-source-exfat-file-system-reaches-10-status http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/01/23/2142213/open-source...

exDM69 13y ago
Apparently the Fuse-based driver hasn't got very good performance and is not quite production quality yet (according to the Phoronix article). In addition, the person who put the leaked driver on GitHub seems to have a negative opinion on Fuse (in some of the forum threads where he's ranting), which does not seem to be based on facts.

ckozlowski 13y ago

There's a severe fault in rxrz's logic here, if I'm following this correctly: "This code was originally under a Samsung proprietary license" Wrong. exfat_version.h:/* - 2012.04.02 : P1 : Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary / this is version p2. I could've technically stripped those comments and changed the version number to / - 2012.02.10 : Release Version 1.1.0 */ But I didn't. Originally, it was either public domain or GPL. Nobody would've ever found out by the code alone, which version this actually is." Let me pull out the key statement here: "Originally, it was either public domain or GPL." That's an assumption. Samsung placed a license on it, and rxrz assumes that prior to that, it must have been GPL or public domain. However, the driver was unknown and didn't exist prior to rxrz's release. It seems likely something could be classified as public domain when it was kept under lock and key. My guess is, this was given a license when the code was finished and bundled for distribution. Assuming otherwise seems dangerous, in my opinion.

kristofferR 13y ago

Samsung may not have intended it as such, but aren't all derivatives of GPL-licenced code also GPL by definition?

Nursie 13y ago
The questions are - is it a derivative of GPL code, and if so have they distributed binaries? I don't think drivers necessarily have to be derivative of GPL code (look at, for instance, nVidia's closed source drivers and lots of Android/ARM graphics drivers).
- lucian1900 13y ago
  Those are technically GPL violations, but kernel devs haven't (yet) complained much.
  - agf 13y ago
    That is absolutely not the community consensus. Linus and the kernel community as a whole have taken the position that this is specifically allowed by the GPL as using a public interface isn't creating a derivative work.
    - kristofferR 13y ago
      Linus Torvalds disagrees with that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_and_firmware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module#License...
      - belorn 13y ago
        If you use Wikipedia as source, please verify that the section you are referring has a source. Both now has citation needed tags on them.
    - 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Tehnix 13y ago
Credit should be put where credit is due

crististm 13y ago

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.

regularfry 13y ago
Morally you might be right. Legally it's a grey area, and practically it's almost certainly a no-go.
- scotty79 13y ago
  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?
  - regularfry 13y ago
    Nope, and that's as far as we can tell not what happened here.
  - Wilya 13y ago
    This is not about the GPL'd code people take from you, it's about what they add/change to this code. Whether you can directly slap the GPL back on these modifications is very discutable. You can most certainly sue them for breaching the license, though. (and, like sister comment says, this is not what's happening here anyway)
  - siddboots 13y ago
    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 releasing their own kernel, just releasing the stock kernel with a bunch of proprietary applications on top, along with their proprietary kernel module. Like that guy said, it's a gray area.

rquirk 13y ago

Isn't this is a general trend with Android/Cyanogenmod hackers? If you go on something like xda-developers then there's a sticky saying "please don't post GPL violations". Early Cyanogen releases were fast and loose with redistribution of Google proprietary apps, which got the author in a spot of trouble IIRC. Right now the distribution of these ROMS is IMO pretty suspect - they include whole swathes of binary blobs that they really shouldn't be redistributing willy nilly. If you want the proprietary pieces that belong to the manufacturer of your phone, you should have to pull them off yourself. The ROM creators shouldn't be pulling these bits off of their phones and re-distributing them. 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.

Supermighty 13y ago
Open source is awesome, yay! It's given Google, Samsung and android device manufactures a hugely successful platform that they would have otherwise had to build from the ground up. And how do they repay the community? Binary blobs. While staying true to the letter of the license they circumvent the spirit of it. I don't condone GPL violations. I also don't care about distributing binary blobs. Without them there wouldn't be alternative android distros.
bad_user 13y ago
Cyanogenmod ROMs aren't distributed with Google's apps anymore. If you want Google's Play store and Gmail, one needs to download and install a separate archive (I just did that yesterday :)) Of course, the distribution of that archive is still suspect. The licensing of those apps is the only leverage Google has for controlling the companies that distribute Android, like Samsung. It is meant for the likes of Samsung and HTC, not Cyanogenmod, which is why I think Google lets it be for now. On the other hand if you want to use bare-bones Android, the biggest pain one experiences is the lack of Google Play. I can live without Gmail, I can live without Google Maps, but unfortunately most apps are only on Google Play, which is awkward, given that as a publisher with Android it isn't a big effort to publish apps on your own website, in addition to Google Play.
- 13y ago

giis 13y ago

latest commit says "Change Module License to Samsung Proprietary" https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/commit/dbf695748ab5e90a48cf9987d84c3d8a3177491f https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/commit/dbf695748ab5e90a...

bjornsing 13y ago

This is a quite interesting case from a legal standpoint. IANAL but my 5 cents are: * If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel. * If so then these two sections of the GPL seem relevant: > 4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License. * I'm not absolutely sure what that means for rxrz. Section 6 seems to imply that rxrz may have a license to the driver, and that that license is indeed the GPL. On the other hand section 4 seems to imply that the redistribution to rxrz was "void". Does that mean rxrz does not have the rights under section 6? If I where rxrz I would at least toy with this idea: a) wait for the DMCA take down notice, b) challenge it claiming to have a license under section 6 of the GPL and c) hope that Samsung does not have the nerve to go to court and risk a decision that would clarify that their license to the Linux kernel has been irreversibly revoked. :) But where does that leave us concerning legality? Is it clear that what rxrz has done is illegal?

Nursie 13y ago
>> If it's true that Samsung distributed this driver as part of the Linux kernel source code tree then it is arguably a derivative work of the Linux kernel. Did Samsung really distribute the source if it was published by accident by one employee? Even if they did, it's under a proprietary license and it's not clear that proprietary kernel modules are necessarily derivative works, they are commonplace. Even if they are derivative that may make Samsung in violation of the GPL but not actually make their code covered (these are be separate issues). And even if they are in violation, this usually has to be challenged by a copyright holder, not simply by a recipient of the binaries. And that's if rxrv even received any binaries... Section 6 is interesting there - "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." I could see a lawyer arguing that the "Program" in clause 1 and 2 are the same, but if you distribute a work based on the Program the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program itself but not the work based on the Program, as that is not enumerated in clause 2. And this is before we even get into the patent violations that any use of such code involves.