Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 74

Thread: Native Linux Kernel Module Is Out For Microsoft exFAT

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    If he starts distributing the library or starts to use it, then it may be the case, but uploading the SOURCE code does NOTHING.
    This source code is not under GPLv2. This source code cannot be redistributed. This code contains Microsoft's IP. It cannot even be made publicly available - that's a direct violation of the law.

    In other words - this repository is warez. Pure and simple.

    And stop shouting at me (caps), I'm not blind.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    This source code is not under GPLv2. This source code cannot be redistributed. This code contains Microsoft's IP. It cannot even be made publicly available - that's a direct violation of the law.

    In other words - this repository is warez. Pure and simple.

    And stop shouting at me (caps), I'm not blind.
    I am not shouting at you (caps) or accusing of blindness, by caps'ing I am pointing out the most important words, as in spoken language - nothing more. There is ability to use bold on site, but I consider caps better, hence I use it.

    So, first you claimed the project infringes patents(1), now you try it with implementation license(2).

    Its not warez, warez is distribution in violation to license agreement.
    License agreement apply to specific implementations, for example ms windowze 98 build xxx. Aka EULA.
    Patents do NOT apply to specific implementations or EULAs. Patent grand is ability to use the patented method ON ANY or SPECIFIC, IMPLEMENTATION.
    Also, its illegal in most sane countries, simply because you can't patent a process! Software is process. Algorythm is process. Math formula is process. Speaking is process. You can't patent that. This is absurd. Except Americas. But lets check nevertheless.

    1) Right, then within America: The project is not misusing or violating any patents, because it will be used absolutely with devices that received the patent grant already.
    Lets take case of DSLR using this filesystem. When the user purchased the camera, he paid via the manufacturer for patent grant to use this FS on this camera. Clear?

    If you connect it with your (which I question) Linux box, you mount this licensed filesystem on the device with patent grand you paid for. This is legal. The device's FS is licensed.

    Illegal would be to produce own device and use this filesystem, to create this filesystem on device without patent grant (for example, create this filesystem on your hard drive). Mounting external licensed media (which is the only case) is okay. Clear? Questions?

    2) Were do you assume "this source code is not under GPLv2"? Source of this please? This implementation (code) was on github, that says something to you?

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    I am not shouting at you (caps) or accusing of blindness, by caps'ing I am pointing out the most important words, as in spoken language - nothing more. There is ability to use bold on site, but I consider caps better, hence I use it.
    That's a load of BS. You have zero understanding of you're talking about.

    Your assumptions are plain ridiculous - like "any code hosted on GitHub must be GPLv2" - that's just insane. There are many closed projects on GitHub. There are many projects which have licenses which are incompatible with GPLv2.

    I'm not gonna refute the rest of your message 'cause it's just beyond asinine. I guess you are a 14 yo Open Source fanatic who believes Open Source is be all and end all.

    Good bye. You're on my black list from now on. You clearly lack reasoning and knowledge to discuss such matters.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    This source code is not under GPLv2. This source code cannot be redistributed. This code contains Microsoft's IP. It cannot even be made publicly available - that's a direct violation of the law.

    In other words - this repository is warez. Pure and simple.

    And stop shouting at me (caps), I'm not blind.
    The source has no license indications (so indeed not GPL), but is clearly shared, so you can redistribute it (at your own responsibility) pleading good faith, until told not to.
    Patents depends very much upon local legislation, meaning that running this code is legal in some places.
    Also, using this code infringes Microsoft patents, but that doesn't prevent the code itself to be distributed.

    This is the exact same situation as mp3 codecs in Linux. All linux distributors based in the US do not ship mp3 decoders with the distribution. The user must install them separately under its own responsibility, from non-US repo.
    E.g.: installation of patented codecs for openSUSE, from external repo in Germany. Or ubuntu separate install for restricted format installation. Note that the codec implementations are all open source and legal.

    @brosis
    patent licenses are per device. You don't get a license to use FAT everywhere as soon as you buy a camera. The device using this code is the (PC + OS), and it doesn't matter if a licensed camera wrote the pictures, you need a license to read them legally if you live in a country where exFAT patents are valid.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    The source has no license indications (so indeed not GPL), but is clearly shared, so you can redistribute it (at your own responsibility) pleading good faith, until told not to.
    Patents depends very much upon local legislation, meaning that running this code is legal in some places.
    Also, using this code infringes Microsoft patents, but that doesn't prevent the code itself to be distributed.
    Older Microsoft Windows OS source also didn't include any licensing information, yet it was proprietary and its redistribution was strictly illegal. Likewise with this piece of code.

    I still don't understand why people here assume that any code which has been published on the Internet becomes public domain, it does not.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    Older Microsoft Windows OS source also didn't include any licensing information, yet it was proprietary and its redistribution was strictly illegal. Likewise with this piece of code.

    I still don't understand why people here assume that any code which has been published on the Internet becomes public domain, it does not.
    My bad, the uploader clearly isn't the copyright holder, so yeah, code not redistributable.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Well, if this code was distributed as part of that 3.0 kernel it actually has to be GPL.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Well, if MS tries to sue, one could argue that
    1.(a) exFAT was mandated by a standard with the consent of Microsoft and
    (b) Microsoft has argued that SEPs should not be grounds for suing, and is thereby estopped.
    2. It is essential for interoperability.

    Of course, I'm not interested in using exFAT in any way.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    10

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    Deepest respect to you pal, thanks a lot for this!
    You're welcome, Brother.
    I appreciate you being open-minded and not following the victim philosophy.


    Quote Originally Posted by birdie View Post
    I still don't understand why people here assume that any code which has been published on the Internet becomes public domain, it does not.
    It does now.

    Quote Originally Posted by erendorn View Post
    My bad, the uploader clearly isn't the copyright holder, so yeah, code not redistributable.
    Seems pretty redistributable to me.
    By now is has been forked 10+ times, starred 30+ times and the news were published all over the oss websites in less than a day.
    It won't get lost, and that's exactly what my intention was: to do a good thing for the community and the OS, to fix what was unfairly wrong.
    I'm not saying I wrote the driver, but you definitely got the full source to figure out the specs for all fat* filesystems.
    I also could've released a fully obfuscated driver or even binary builds, and would've never had any questions about the license.
    I never did because I respect the good and hard work accomplished by the authors of the code.

    The leak wasn't mine, I found it by pure luck. You can find the original repository of 3.0 droid kernel on github from at least 2 repos, updated 2-3 months ago.
    There lies the original driver, as a part of the GNU/Linux kernel with tons of other proprietary patches/drivers for that platform. It can now be included with all custom firmwares for Android devices.
    It has been there for months and months, nobody has put it offline, nobody got sued, hunted down or hanged.

    All I did was updating the code to work with the recent kernels and promoting the leak.
    People with emotional insecurities are trying to make up something depressing and horrible, point a finger and make lots of noise.
    For me it was just sad to see people complaining more often than being grateful or happy about something.
    I hope they will patent and release a license on negative thinking.

    P.S.
    This is not only an exFat driver, it's a fat12/16/32/64 driver. I can not state it works well for other filesystems besides the latter one, but it certainly was intended to. It has lots of code to support those versions of FAT. It could be turned into a fat.ko driver and it also could replace the slow vfat driver found in the current kernel trees. People really should stop being depressing, quit all the gossip and put their testosterone in the way of creating something for the computers.
    I wish you to learn to see the bright sides and ignore parasites such as m$ in the future.

    I honestly hope this driver module will make your data management easier and faster.
    Thank you for the attention and being a part of the real IT of today.

    “Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.”
    ― Isaac Asimov
    ”Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it?”
    ― Roy Batty

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    858

    Default

    Can we be a bit more civil in here? I think we all agree on the following:

    1. The source code does not contain any Microsoft IP (or if it does, their copyright headers were stripped from the code)
    2. The exFAT technology is patent encumbered in countries where software patents exist. Even in those countries, this is a problem only when you distribute binaries, not source code.
    3. The code has no license attached to it. Use and redistribution is only permitted with a license so you have to obtain one separately before you can do that.
    4. github responds to DMCA takedown notices, which indicates that the copyright holder is either unaware of, or not bothered enough by his code being public on github.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •