10 ms·

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 emotio

by 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..
- wisty 13y ago
  I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.
  - jdjb 13y ago
    I would love to hear Stallman's take on this.
  - coldpie 13y ago
    Here's a couple of related answers at the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... Unfortunately, the question isn't really directly answered. The most relevant passage seems to be, "If the [unwittingly distributed] version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that." So I think a court would rule that the original leak does not qualify as "distribution," and thus the company is not required to distribute the source and everyone distributing the leaked code is under copyright violation.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.
      - read_again 13y ago
        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.
        Dylan16807 13y ago
        >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?
- stelonix 13y ago
  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.

by skore 13y ago

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..

wisty 13y ago
I can sort of see is logic. If a company has a private stash of GPL code (say, Google is running a special fork of Linux), and it gets leaked, even though the leak was illegal the code might still be distributable under GPL. But ... this code was never (afaik) legitimately GPL. Maybe Samsung had based it on GPL code (in which case, it's GPL), but we'd need some proof.
- jdjb 13y ago
  I would love to hear Stallman's take on this.
- coldpie 13y ago
  Here's a couple of related answers at the FSF GPL FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistributio... Unfortunately, the question isn't really directly answered. The most relevant passage seems to be, "If the [unwittingly distributed] version in question is unpublished and considered by a company to be its trade secret, then publishing it may be a violation of trade secret law, depending on other circumstances. The GPL does not change that." So I think a court would rule that the original leak does not qualify as "distribution," and thus the company is not required to distribute the source and everyone distributing the leaked code is under copyright violation.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I was confused for a minute, then I remembered that you don't actually have to accept the GPL as a user, only as an intentional distributor. So while the base version is GPL, the private version isn't - by default it's a hybrid of GPL and proprietary code.
    - read_again 13y ago
      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.
      - Dylan16807 13y ago
        >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?
stelonix 13y ago
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.