And the last paragraph in that article sums it up: *The drawback, in this instance, is that exFAT is owned by Microsoft, is a > proprietary fileformat, and has patent issues. The exFAT driver code can > only be deployed by manufacturers or distributions that have obtained a > licence from Microsoft.*
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Stijn Devriendt <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >
