Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Samsung Properly Open-Sources exFAT File-System

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,391

    Default Samsung Properly Open-Sources exFAT File-System

    Phoronix: Samsung Properly Open-Sources exFAT File-System

    Back in June, Phoronix was the first to report of a native exFAT file-system implementation for Linux that appeared on GitHub. It later turned out that Samsung accidentally leaked their exFAT source code. The solution has now been corrected with Samsung formally open-sourcing their exFAT source code...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTQzODQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    109

    Default

    I presume this only resolves the code license issue - that patent license issues still remain, and that Samsung has licensed the patents - for their own use.

  3. #3

    Default

    In a very quick comparison of their 1.2.4 source to the leaked one, it seems they removed all comments in the process...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    In a very quick comparison of their 1.2.4 source to the leaked one, it seems they removed all comments in the process...
    This is to show their support to open source folks, I guess.

  5. #5

    Default

    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
    In a very quick comparison of their 1.2.4 source to the leaked one, it seems they removed all comments in the process...
    This would violate this, from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
    The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.
    Doesn't it? I doubt that Samsung engineers work with that stripped down version.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    Dream on.

    Microsoft still holds the exFAT patents. Samsung licensed them for their own use only. Im not surprised if Microsoft revokes Samsung's patent license for the exFAT driver, thus making it illegal for anybody to download and use Samsung's driver source code, since Samsung clearly did not get Microsoft's approval to open their driver.

    plus im damn sure that whatever the licensing terms for the exFat patents are, royalty-free dissemination is definitely not one of them.
    Last edited by Sonadow; 08-16-2013 at 12:53 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krysto View Post
    Does this mean whoever uses this won't have to pay Microsoft for their own FAT patents anymore?
    Only if it were released under GPLv3. In that case Samsung would have to pay Microsoft for everybody

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Dream on.

    Microsoft still holds the exFAT patents. Samsung licensed them for their own use only. Im not surprised if Microsoft revokes Samsung's patent license for the exFAT driver, thus making it illegal for anybody to download and use Samsung's driver source code.
    exFAT is considered a standard-essential patent and thus must be licensed under "FRAND" ( fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, Samsung could sue Microsoft in the case it denied the license.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by newwen View Post
    exFAT is considered a standard-essential patent and thus must be licensed under "FRAND" ( fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms, Samsung could sue Microsoft in the case it denied the license.
    And Microsoft has every right to revoke the license if Samsung does things which are not permitted under the licensing terms they negotiated with MS over, whatever they may be.

    Just like the Conservancy can bar organizations from distributing GPL-ed software for non-compliance, Microsoft can do the same with organizations that do not respect its licensing terms.

    FRAND does not give the licensee the right to do whatever they want with it.

Posting Permissions

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