On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
>
A binaray is *not* a modification of the source, no more then a meal is
a 'modification' of a recipe.
> 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.
>
No, they do not. The code was released out of the kindness and as a
contribution to the community as a whole. It is still the property of
Samsung to do with what they please.
Samsung had written the code under a proprietary license. It was found
after a developer had improperly pushed it publically, and then was adopted
by other developers who put the GPL label on it *WITHOUT THE PROPER
PERMISSIONS OF THE OWNERS OF THE CODE*.
Samsung has decided to open source the implementation, which now allows
developers who ended up using the stolen code to now have a rightful
license to it.
-- Thomas
