TJ wrote at 11:12 (EDT) on Monday: > 2a. GPLv2§2 and §3, I assume, doesn't apply to Samsung since exFAT is > not a modification nor a copy, it is an original work by Samsung.
Binaries are a modification of source. The module is derivative of Linux for multiple reasons. GPLv2§2 and §3 both apply, AFAICT, in all the real-world cases we're looking at regarding this specific code. Note, again, that users who bought the devices that include the no-source-available exfat modules received distribution of binaries, and have a right to source code. > I think many of us regular developers find this area of the GPL > difficult to understand because, it seems to me at least, there are > two quite different readings of the license depending on whether you > receive the work and source directly from the copyright holder, or > from someone who is copying and distributing. The license indeed works in different ways depending on whether you receive source or not, and it's certainly true that some key provisions of GPLv3 operates differently with regard to the copyright holder vs. a redistributor (or, re-conveyor/re-propagator, to use GPLv3 terminology). I admit that Free Software licensing is more complicated than it seems on the surface. > Your contributions recently have helped me, at least, to get a better > understanding. Thank-you. You're welcome; I'm glad it's helpful. > Of course - it isn't hard when you're not familiar with the > intricacies of the organisational acronyms to get SFC (Software > Freedom Conservancy) and SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre) confused! Of course. FWIW, I tend to call "Software Freedom Conservancy" by the name: "Conservancy". "software freedom" is a generic term, after all, like "Free Software". I sometimes call "FSF" "the Foundation", but that has a semi-unintentional Asmiov references, so I don't do it often. :) -- -- bkuhn
