Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 8/30/2013 12:32 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: Would you say that "sullies the reputation of lawyers and judges generally"? Well, Free Software Developers have higher standards. :-)
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
Hi Bradley, > Occasionally, a lawyer and/or judge is corrupt and does something > wrong. Would you say that "sullies the reputation of lawyers and > judges generally"? Unfairly perhaps, but yes. Have all those that work in the banking industry be sullied by the actions of a small percentage? A matter of degree, yes, but r[xz]r[xz]'s actions have gained publicity and his responses to criticism may have encouraged others as repercussions are nil? Cheers, Ralph.
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
Jilayne Lovejoy wrote at 14:19 (EDT) on Wednesday: > I'm not sure it so much sullies the reputation of the GPL > specifically, so much as Free Software and developers generally, by > creating an impression of a rogue developer with no regard for the > very law that provides the framework to protect free software and > effect such licenses as GPL. It seems quite far to go to say that this situation "sullies the reputation of Free Software and developers generally". Occasionally, a lawyer and/or judge is corrupt and does something wrong. Would you say that "sullies the reputation of lawyers and judges generally"? -- -- bkuhn
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 8/25/13 5:08 AM, "Ralph Corderoy" wrote: > >> I also think rxrz's actions in this matter were deplorable and >> incorrect, mostly because rxrz's actions made it *more difficult* than >> it would have been to resolve the matter to a good resolution. > >It's annoying that rxrz slapped a GNU GPL licence on code that wasn't >his. Kind of sullies the GPL by association. I agree, Ralph, although, I'm not sure it so much sullies the reputation of the GPL specifically, so much as Free Software and developers generally, by creating an impression of a rogue developer with no regard for the very law that provides the framework to protect free software and effect such licenses as GPL. Of course, not all free software developers are heroes either, but such a public and negative impression can often get imputed broadly. I find it especially disappointing that Wired magazine's piece called this person "Robin Hood" and then allowed the person to be quoted in Wired's article without verifying identity. I would characterize the former as sensationalism in the wrong direction and the latter as simply poor journalism. *sigh* > The repo still sits at >github, along with its many fork-descendants. Github, understanding >what he's done, still say that they will only remove them at the request >of the copyright holder, and requested that they be contacted to file a >DMCA take-down; http://help.github.com/dmca-takedown. Would there be >someone at Samsung interested in doing this to tidy things up rather >than leave a not-properly-released "GPL'd" version detracting from the >pucker source? Presumably github zap all the descendants given the root >repo. I can't blame GitHub for taking this stance - it would not be wise of them to take down something without going through the proper procedures under the DMCA, as that could set a dangerous precedent and impression for their customers (even if this seems like a clear cut case of wrong-doing). Remains to be seen whether Samsung will file the request, so we shall "stay tuned"! Jilayne >
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
Hi Bradley, > I also think rxrz's actions in this matter were deplorable and > incorrect, mostly because rxrz's actions made it *more difficult* than > it would have been to resolve the matter to a good resolution. It's annoying that rxrz slapped a GNU GPL licence on code that wasn't his. Kind of sullies the GPL by association. The repo still sits at github, along with its many fork-descendants. Github, understanding what he's done, still say that they will only remove them at the request of the copyright holder, and requested that they be contacted to file a DMCA take-down; http://help.github.com/dmca-takedown. Would there be someone at Samsung interested in doing this to tidy things up rather than leave a not-properly-released "GPL'd" version detracting from the pucker source? Presumably github zap all the descendants given the root repo. Cheers, Ralph.
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 08/20/2013 03:08 PM, Thomas Charron wrote: A binaray is *not* a modification of the source, no more then a meal is a 'modification' of a recipe. This analogy doesn't really work. A binary created using a compiler, and potentially an assembler, linker, and other tools is a textual translation of the source code. The artistic elements of the original persist but in a different form. And of course we know all about how that works legally due to CAI v. Altai. It is more than fair to call any translation a modification of the original work. It might miss being a /derivative/ work because there is no additional /art/ added by the mechanical process of translation, and thus no new copyrightable elements. In contrast, creating food from a recipie is not a textual translation, it is the execution of a set of instructions regarding how to combine materials. But your entire argument is moot anyway, since the work appears to have copied liberally from the Linux kernel and we have not established that every element it copied was exclusively functional rather than expressive.
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
Thomas Charron wrote: >A binary is *not* a modification of the source, no more then a meal >is a 'modification' of a recipe. Actually, in the USA it is. Admittedly, it may be handled differently in different copyright jurisdictions. Regardless, one needs permission under copyright to prepare and distribute a binary work if that work builds, in part or in whole, from source code copyrighted by someone else. That's true in pretty much all Berne Convention countries AFAIK. (Can anyone identify a Berne Convention country where this *isn't* true?) I wrote: >> 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. Thomas replied: > No, they do not. Multiple investigators, including me personally, have confirmed the facts I stated above and elsewhere in this thread. I don't think Samsung distributed those modules with every single tablet, though, only specific versions. If you have a Samsung tablet, it may or may not have the exfat code in it. > The code was released out of the kindness and as a contribution to the > community as a whole. I don't dispute that Samsung has handled this problem with kindness and cooperation, but they *were* resolving a GPL violation. > It was found after a developer had improperly pushed it publically, I also think rxrz's actions in this matter were deplorable and incorrect, mostly because rxrz's actions made it *more difficult* than it would have been to resolve the matter to a good resolution. But please don't conflate rxrz's bad actions with the GPL violation underneath. Samsung distributed the exfat Linux module with some of their Linux-based tablet products. That's a violation of GPL and infringement of copyright. Samsung since corrected that violation with their source release, and, in my experience, they did so in a way that was kind, considerate, and cooperative with the Free Software community. rxrz thought it would help to "leak" the code. I agree with you that it didn't help, and actually made things worse and more confusing. But that's a separate issue. -- bkuhn
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
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
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
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. 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"' 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). 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.
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 8/17/13 4:21 AM, "TJ" mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing additional terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in order to obtain the source? That is correct in so far as section 6 of GPLv2, which states, ". . . You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. . ." but I don't believe the Agreement you've included below imposes any further restrictions - see comments. From: http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=modal "Please take a moment to read the legal agreement. If you accept the terms below, please click ŒAgree¹. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. ("Samsung") is pleased to make available to you the various source codes ("Source Codes") for download from this website ("Download Service") at no charge. By using the Source Code and/or the Download Service, you expressly assume all risk and liability associated with and/or caused by the same and complying with all applicable user agreements that accompany each Source Code. This, to me, is like restating the disclaimer that the GPL already includes. I'd also consider this a "gentle reminder" that there may be compliance actions associated with the licenses that the source that is being provided. To the extent any of the Source Codes are licensed under public licenses such as the GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, such licenses can be found in each of the files containing the Source Codes. No restrictions here, I refer to this as an "FYI" clause, as in, I don't really have to tell you this, but I'm going to point it out to make sure you notice. Samsung provides the Source Codes and this Downloading Service "as is" without representation or warranty of any kind and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose accuracy, completeness, currency, availability, title, or non-infringement. Samsung will not be liable for any damages of any kind arising from the use of the Source Code and this Downloading Service, including, but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, and support or assistance with respect to the Source Codes or the Download Service. Again, this is reaffirming the "as is"/no warranty nature of the software being provided, which is what GPL states to begin with. This downloading service shall not affect not extend any warranty or disclaimer which Samsung makes in each of Samsung¹s products in which the Source Code (or object/executable code based thereon) is incorporated." Samsung is certainly allowed to choose when or how any warranty they offer to customers directly expire or apply. Again, I don't see this as imposing any further restriction on the GPL code being provided. While it may seem uncomfortable to have to "agree" to any kind of an agreement to get to the source code, so long as the terms that one must agree to do not violate section 6, then I don't see that as being a conflict. Of course, I'd be curious to hear if Bradley, Armijn, and Harald agree :) Cheers, Jilayne (first time posting!)
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Bradley M. Kuhn 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
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
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
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 19/08/13 14:28, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > TJ wrote at 19:55 (EDT) on Sunday: >> "...and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed, >> including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a >> particular purpose accuracy, completeness.." > > The above reads to me as compatible with the terms GPLv2§11 and GPLv2§12. Do > you find some contradiction between the text quoted above and those sections? > > (Note that GPLv3§7(a) makes this sort of compatibility analysis of warranty > disclaimers even easier.) My question was more from a user's perspective as to what remedies might be available. The crux of what I was thinking about when I wrote the original question was: 1. The majority of the code in exFAT is copyright Samsung 2. Samsung license the code under GPLv2 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. 3. Samsung imposes a supplementary contractual agreement on a user wishing to download the source code 4. That contract includes disclaimers as to accuracy and completeness 5. What would be the user's recourse if the source-code proved to be incomplete In the devices exFAT is combined with the rest of the Linux kernel so for the binary distribution Samsung is both a distributor and an original author. 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. Your contributions recently have helped me, at least, to get a better understanding. Thank-you. > I am not aware of any SFLC press release on this matter, nor of any work done by SFLC on this matter. 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! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlISNfIACgkQ7+w3pCnNYIDLhgCeOXYtzvHU/+6VhfcSv1FMikpg SCUAoNGe43i77c6d5bEewi1RdXe4ibJx =mdve -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
>> TJ wrote at 06:21 (EDT) on Sunday: As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing additional terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in order to obtain the source? > On 18/08/13 02:45, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: >> You're correct that imposing additional restrictions on distribution is >> prohibited by GPLv2§6. However, I didn't see anything in that >> download agreement that imposed an additional restriction. Which >> part do you think imposed an additional restriction? TJ wrote at 19:55 (EDT) on Sunday: > "...and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby > disclaimed, including, without limitation, warranties of > merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose accuracy, > completeness.." The above reads to me as compatible with the terms GPLv2§11 and GPLv2§12. Do you find some contradiction between the text quoted above and those sections? (Note that GPLv3§7(a) makes this sort of compatibility analysis of warranty disclaimers even easier.) > which made me immediately wonder what a user's recourse would be if > the download(s) from the Samsung open source centre are incomplete. It > would seem to leave users without a remedy to obtain the It seems to me that it's still copyright infringement if they don't comply with copyright, regardless of warranties being disclaimed. Are you aware of some regulation or law in some jurisdiction which would cause that not to be true? Also, in the alternative, note that you don't get the binaries from that site, only the sources. Thus, distribution of the binaries is not covered by that specific warranty disclaimer anyway (although I suspect there's a similar warranty disclaimer with Samsung's products). > Indeed, after Armijn made me aware of it that is what I did, but there > was no mention of that repository in the SFLC press release. I am not aware of any SFLC press release on this matter, nor of any work done by SFLC on this matter. To my knowledge and belief, SFLC is not involved in enforcement of GPL for Linux, BusyBox, nor Samba. Perhaps you mean the press release by Conservancy, which is a different organization entirely from SFLC (although SFLC used to be Conservancy's lawyers, a long time ago)? Perhaps the fact that SFLC used to be, long ago, Conservancy's law firm is what has you confused here? Anyway, I want to note clearly that the git repository isn't mentioned in Conservancy's press statement because I did that work on my own. I'm personally distributing that software, not Conservancy. (Not that Conservancy wouldn't do so, it's just that Conservancy didn't, *I* did.) Anyway, I see no reason not to download the sources from Samsung's website, as explained above. I'd been planning to make a personal blog post about the git repository and other personal thoughts on this matter, but I haven't gotten the tuits yet. -- -- bkuhn
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18/08/13 02:45, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote: > TJ wrote at 06:21 (EDT): >>> I... was unable to download the source without first agreeing to an >>> additional Samsung legal agreement. > .. >>> As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing >>> additional terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in >>> order to obtain the source? > > You're correct that imposing additional restrictions on distribution is > prohibited by GPLv2§6. However, I didn't see anything in that > download agreement that imposed an additional restriction. Which > part do you think imposed an additional restriction? "...and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose accuracy, completeness.." My eyes caught on: "warranties" ... "disclaimed, including" ... "accuracy" ... "completeness" which made me immediately wonder what a user's recourse would be if the download(s) from the Samsung open source centre are incomplete. It would seem to leave users without a remedy to obtain the "complete corresponding machine-readable source code" if it did prove to be incomplete. > But, as Armijn Hemel pointed out at 15:40 (EDT): >> Then get it from Gitorious where Bradley put it: >> https://gitorious.org/binbang/exfat-linux > > You can feel free to take distribution of that code from me, under > GPLv2, via the aforementioned repository. :) Indeed, after Armijn made me aware of it that is what I did, but there was no mention of that repository in the SFLC press release. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIRXtcACgkQ7+w3pCnNYIC+BQCgzzGiSMj9bN1E0eMOB34AIPhU XGMAnid8APGKnIwl9Wigv6fYVnLfvlp9 =u9oi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
TJ wrote at 06:21 (EDT): >> I... was unable to download the source without first agreeing to an >> additional Samsung legal agreement. .. >> As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing >> additional terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in >> order to obtain the source? You're correct that imposing additional restrictions on distribution is prohibited by GPLv2§6. However, I didn't see anything in that download agreement that imposed an additional restriction. Which part do you think imposed an additional restriction? But, as Armijn Hemel pointed out at 15:40 (EDT): > Then get it from Gitorious where Bradley put it: > https://gitorious.org/binbang/exfat-linux You can feel free to take distribution of that code from me, under GPLv2, via the aforementioned repository. :) -- -- bkuhn
RE: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
If you want to avoid the agreement for the sake of research, there's a sequence of exfat commits that go version by version on github. https://github.com/AndreiLux/Perseus-UNIVERSAL5410/commits/perseus Just scroll down a hair and you'll see them. - Eric -Original Message- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of TJ Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 6:21 AM To: Jeremy L. Gaddis Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably" On 16/08/13 23:48, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably" Thank-you for this Jeremy. I went to the Samsung open-source site but, after clicking on one of the ZIP file downloads, was unable to download the source without first agreeing to an additional Samsung legal agreement. I tried choosing "Disgree" and continuing but the site doesn't allow that. As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing additional terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in order to obtain the source? From: http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=modal "Please take a moment to read the legal agreement. If you accept the terms below, please click ‘Agree’. Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. ("Samsung") is pleased to make available to you the various source codes ("Source Codes") for download from this website ("Download Service") at no charge. By using the Source Code and/or the Download Service, you expressly assume all risk and liability associated with and/or caused by the same and complying with all applicable user agreements that accompany each Source Code. To the extent any of the Source Codes are licensed under public licenses such as the GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General Public License, such licenses can be found in each of the files containing the Source Codes. Samsung provides the Source Codes and this Downloading Service "as is" without representation or warranty of any kind and all such warranties, express or implied, are hereby disclaimed, including, without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose accuracy, completeness, currency, availability, title, or non-infringement. Samsung will not be liable for any damages of any kind arising from the use of the Source Code and this Downloading Service, including, but not limited to direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, and support or assistance with respect to the Source Codes or the Download Service. This downloading service shall not affect not extend any warranty or disclaimer which Samsung makes in each of Samsung’s products in which the Source Code (or object/executable code based thereon) is incorporated."
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 08/17/2013 12:21 PM, TJ wrote: I went to the Samsung open-source site but, after clicking on one of the ZIP file downloads, was unable to download the source without first agreeing to an additional Samsung legal agreement. I tried choosing "Disgree" and continuing but the site doesn't allow that. Then get it from Gitorious where Bradley put it: https://gitorious.org/binbang/exfat-linux No extra agreements there... armijn -- [email protected] || http://www.gpl-violations.org/
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 16/08/13 23:48, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote:
> "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
Thank-you for this Jeremy.
I went to the Samsung open-source site but, after clicking on one of the ZIP
file downloads, was unable to download the source without first agreeing to an
additional Samsung legal agreement. I
tried choosing "Disgree" and continuing but the site doesn't allow that.
As I understood it the GPL precludes distributors from imposing additional
terms; surely that includes imposing a legal agreement in order to obtain the
source?
From: http://opensource.samsung.com/reception/receptionSub.do?method=modal
"Please take a moment to read the legal agreement. If you accept the terms
below, please click ‘Agree’.
Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd. ("Samsung") is pleased to make available to you
the various source codes ("Source Codes") for download from this website
("Download Service") at no charge. By using the
Source Code and/or the Download Service, you expressly assume all risk and
liability associated with and/or caused by the same and complying with all
applicable user agreements that accompany each
Source Code. To the extent any of the Source Codes are licensed under public
licenses such as the GNU General Public License and/or GNU Lesser General
Public License, such licenses can be found in
each of the files containing the Source Codes.
Samsung provides the Source Codes and this Downloading Service "as is" without
representation or warranty of any kind and all such warranties, express or
implied, are hereby disclaimed, including,
without limitation, warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose accuracy, completeness, currency, availability, title, or
non-infringement. Samsung will not be liable for any
damages of any kind arising from the use of the Source Code and this
Downloading Service, including, but not limited to direct, indirect,
incidental, punitive, and support or assistance with respect
to the Source Codes or the Download Service.
This downloading service shall not affect not extend any warranty or disclaimer
which Samsung makes in each of Samsung’s products in which the Source Code (or
object/executable code based thereon)
is incorporated."
Re: "Conservancy Helps Samsung Resolve GPL Compliance Matter Amicably"
On 16/08/13 23:48, Jeremy L. Gaddis wrote: > "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 GPLv2§3) 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/ Wonderful - as much as anything else it authoritatively puts an end to the speculation, rumour, and innuendo surrounding the exFAT source.
