Re: Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL

2013-08-22 Thread Vinz Focker 
> What is wrong with such persons? This is insane.


What's wrong with Samsung I'd rather ask ... that mail has backfired,
hasn't it ?
However, glad that it got resolved.


On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Andrei Frumusanu  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> It has come to my attention that a recent internal leak of Samsung's
> kernel-space exFat driver implementation has been making the rounds around
> the web. Nothing we can do about that, what is out, is out.
>
> However a certain user "rxrz" went a bit too far with his actions:
>
> https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-**nofuse
>
> He basically has stripped the original code clean of all Samsung
> proprietary license marks and threw GPL tags on it.
>
> When confronted with the issue; he came with the most unbelievable retort:
> https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-**nofuse/issues/5
>
> This went as far as being posted on Phoronix as a legitimate driver:
> http://phoronix.com/forums/**showthread.php?81642-Native-**
> Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-**For-Microsoft-exFAT
>
> Clearly this is a breach of the most severe matter. Samsung has been made
> aware of it, but there has been no response on the matter yet. I expect
> nothing less than a DCMA takedown of the repository.
>
>  "It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung,
>> Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a signed paper from
>> your parents on whether you can or can not use it? I'm a programmer, not a
>> lawyer. You got the code, now decide what to do with it, it's up to you."
>>
>
> What is wrong with such persons? This is insane.
>
> Andrei F.
>
>

"Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably" (was: Re: Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL)

2013-08-17 Thread Jeremy L. Gaddis 

"Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"

"Conservancy's GPL Compliance Project for Linux Developers is pleased to 
announce its role in assisting Samsung in a recent public compliance 
issue. The compliance issue was brought to Conservancy's attention when 
source code of an exFAT filesystem driver for Linux was unintentionally 
released via GitHub, and Conservancy later determined that similar code 
appeared in binary form only (thus violating GPLv2ยง3) in a Samsung 
Linux-based tablet. Samsung has made a source release available on their 
Open Source Release Center website."


-- http://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/



On 07/21/2013 08:24 PM, Andrei Frumusanu wrote:

Hello,

It has come to my attention that a recent internal leak of Samsung's
kernel-space exFat driver implementation has been making the rounds
around the web. Nothing we can do about that, what is out, is out.

However a certain user "rxrz" went a bit too far with his actions:

https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse

He basically has stripped the original code clean of all Samsung
proprietary license marks and threw GPL tags on it.

When confronted with the issue; he came with the most unbelievable
retort: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5

This went as far as being posted on Phoronix as a legitimate driver:
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT


Clearly this is a breach of the most severe matter. Samsung has been
made aware of it, but there has been no response on the matter yet. I
expect nothing less than a DCMA takedown of the repository.


"It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung,
Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a signed paper
from your parents on whether you can or can not use it? I'm a
programmer, not a lawyer. You got the code, now decide what to do with
it, it's up to you."


What is wrong with such persons? This is insane.

Andrei F.

Re: Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL

2013-07-22 Thread Eric Appleman 

On 7/21/2013 8:24 PM, Andrei Frumusanu wrote:

Hello,

It has come to my attention that a recent internal leak of Samsung's 
kernel-space exFat driver implementation has been making the rounds 
around the web. Nothing we can do about that, what is out, is out.


However a certain user "rxrz" went a bit too far with his actions:

https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse

He basically has stripped the original code clean of all Samsung 
proprietary license marks and threw GPL tags on it.


When confronted with the issue; he came with the most unbelievable 
retort: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5


This went as far as being posted on Phoronix as a legitimate driver: 
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT


Clearly this is a breach of the most severe matter. Samsung has been 
made aware of it, but there has been no response on the matter yet. I 
expect nothing less than a DCMA takedown of the repository.


"It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by 
Samsung, Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a 
signed paper from your parents on whether you can or can not use it? 
I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. You got the code, now decide what to 
do with it, it's up to you."


What is wrong with such persons? This is insane.

Andrei F.

I first learned of this driver from Phoronix, a Linux tabloid with very 
low journalistic integrity. From the beginning, I was a little suspicious.


rxrz wanted us to believe that he was able to single-handedly create or 
reverse engineer a kernel-space driver when nobody else in the desktop 
Linux or Android developer circles had previously been able to do so, 
even with group effort. No matter what has been claimed on this list or 
elsewhere, everyone uses the shipped binary modules or FUSE.


Then there were the initial uploads with not much being changed 
afterwards and little collaboration.


Okay, that happens sometimes. That's not incriminating on its own.

But wow, the guy outright admits that the code came from Samsung and 
asserts that he was in the right to do so. I find it unlikely that 
Samsung could publish the code (as GPL or proprietary) or public domain 
it even if they wanted to. Microsoft has always insisted that they have 
tight control over exfat and the exorbitant license fees have served to 
ensure this.


I regret ever mentioning his repo on this list in a positive light, but 
I'm glad it's all being taken care of now.


- Eric Appleman

Re: Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL

2013-07-22 Thread Philip Kendall 
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:24:38AM +0200, Andrei Frumusanu wrote:

[ ... ]

> He basically has stripped the original code clean of all Samsung  
> proprietary license marks and threw GPL tags on it.

If this is really what happened (and I'm in no way denying it is!),
this is clearly a violation of Samsung's copyright, but I'm not
seeing the *GPL* violation here.

Or in other words: is it worth us discussing this here? This is
something for Samsung, rxrz and maybe GitHub to sort out.

Cheers,

Phil

-- 
  Philip Kendall 
  http://www.shadowmagic.org.uk/

Re: Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL

2013-07-22 Thread Armijn Hemel 

On 07/22/2013 03:46 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

does Samsung really license and sell etc publish a closed
source patent licensed kernel space idiot stunt FS, when peer
review can be had on free userspace software, for free, fixing
_everything_, world-wide?

Yes. Probably because of patents.

armijn

--

 [email protected] || http://www.gpl-violations.org/

Re: Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL

2013-07-22 Thread Arnt Karlsen 
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 02:24:38 +0200, Andrei wrote in message 
:

> Hello,
> 
> It has come to my attention that a recent internal leak of Samsung's  
> kernel-space exFat driver implementation has been making the rounds
> around the web. Nothing we can do about that, what is out, is out.
> 
> However a certain user "rxrz" went a bit too far with his actions:
> 
> https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse

..does GitHub know now?

> He basically has stripped the original code clean of all Samsung  
> proprietary license marks and threw GPL tags on it.
> 
> When confronted with the issue; he came with the most unbelievable
> retort: https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5
> 
> This went as far as being posted on Phoronix as a legitimate driver:  
> http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT

..does phoronix.com know now?

> Clearly this is a breach of the most severe matter. Samsung has been
> made aware of it, but there has been no response on the matter yet. I
> expect nothing less than a DCMA takedown of the repository.

..they probably want to be thorough before they get tough, ;o) 
e.g., does Samsung really license and sell etc publish a closed 
source patent licensed kernel space idiot stunt FS, when peer 
review can be had on free userspace software, for free, fixing 
_everything_, world-wide?

> > "It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by
> > Samsung, Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a
> > signed paper from your parents on whether you can or can not use
> > it? I'm a programmer, not a lawyer. You got the code, now decide
> > what to do with it, it's up to you."
> 
> What is wrong with such persons? This is insane.

..could be some sort of "black flag" trick to try paint us or 
Samsung, Google, gpl-violations.org or "Linux" as code thieves.
Etc.  Have the Nazgul smoke 'em like tSCOG. 

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.

Licensing stolen/leaked code as GPL

2013-07-22 Thread Andrei Frumusanu 

Hello,

It has come to my attention that a recent internal leak of Samsung's  
kernel-space exFat driver implementation has been making the rounds around  
the web. Nothing we can do about that, what is out, is out.


However a certain user "rxrz" went a bit too far with his actions:

https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse

He basically has stripped the original code clean of all Samsung  
proprietary license marks and threw GPL tags on it.


When confronted with the issue; he came with the most unbelievable retort:  
https://github.com/rxrz/exfat-nofuse/issues/5


This went as far as being posted on Phoronix as a legitimate driver:  
http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?81642-Native-Linux-Kernel-Module-Is-Out-For-Microsoft-exFAT


Clearly this is a breach of the most severe matter. Samsung has been made  
aware of it, but there has been no response on the matter yet. I expect  
nothing less than a DCMA takedown of the repository.


"It's a leaked code of a proprietary exfat driver, written by Samsung,  
Inc. It works, you can use it. What else do you want, a signed paper  
from your parents on whether you can or can not use it? I'm a  
programmer, not a lawyer. You got the code, now decide what to do with  
it, it's up to you."


What is wrong with such persons? This is insane.

Andrei F.