On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Dan Pasanen <[email protected]> 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. > Hi Dan, The GPL is clear about patents in section 7: *7.* If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example,* if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. * If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice. This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License. So imho the question is: how does Microsoft handle licensing for those patents? Does it do this on a royalty-free basis? Does Samsung have right to distribute royalty-free versions of this code? Personally, I'd rather not be the first one to ship this code in a product and get sued over it. I'm not even sure if anyone has dared add this code to a product with this code (without a patent license). If it means something: this code isn't in the mainline kernel yet and probably for a reason. Another interesting read is this one: http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/news/samsungs-exfat-linux-driver-now-gpl-compliant As always: IANAL and this is not legal advice. Regards, Stijn
