On 2014-08-20 03:04, Dan Pasanen wrote: > As I'm sure several of you are aware, about a year ago the SFC assisted > Samsung in releasing the exfat kernel module as GPL. > (http://sfconservancy.org/news/2013/aug/16/exfat-samsung/) > > What's not mentioned there is Microsoft's hand in this whole situation. > Apparently Microsoft holds a patent on exfat or > something.(http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/iplicensing/programs/exfatfilesystem.aspx) > > Samsung releases this code, under GPL, but there are concerns about > distributing this as Microsoft actually owns a patent on it. > > Can anyone clarify how this might be handled as far as distributing > source and binaries for this? It would be my understanding that since > its GPL, as long as you are within the license, you're fine.
Even if somebody smacks a GPL/BSD/etc license on a piece of code, one still has to comply with the patent license. In the ExFAT case that means talking to Microsoft as they own that patent. Note that quite a few companies (read: Samsung and others who use Android with FAT support) pay Microsoft royalties for that. Note that likely Samsung cannot even slam a GPL license on it, as it is not theirs to give away (unless they have a special deal with Microsoft which at least I am unaware of). If you google a bit you'll find lots of stories about this ExFAT situation. Greets, Jeroen
