Jonathan Wilson wrote today: > I myself haven't done a comparison of the Samsung source code and the > kernel source but I have read of others who have done so and found the > statements in the Samsung code to be true (i.e. that the Samsung code IS > using code from other kernel source files).
I don't know if anyone has done this analysis on the new release (some people did it on the "leaked" version not legitimately released from Samsung). But you're correct that the current version has those notes in it: > The Samsung code contains statements like 'Some of the source code in this > file came from "linux/fs/fat/misc.c"' and 'Some of the source code in this > file came from "linux/fs/fat/file.c","linux/fs/fat/inode.c" and > "linux/fs/fat/misc.c"' and 'Some of the source code in this file came from > "linux/fs/fat/fat.h"' So we know that's one reason this is a derivative work of Linux. > Therefore the Samsung code is a derived work of kernel code not > written by Samsung and they are required to comply with the terms of > GPLv2 as applied to misc.c, file.c, inode.c, fat.h and any other > source files they may have copied from. They're were required to comply with GPLv2 for other reasons too, most notably that they shipped a whole distribution of the kernel named Linux with the binary exfat modules included. The whole work there was the Linux+exfat_modules, and was a derivative work of all of Linux. -- bkuhn
