Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

Thread: Samsung Properly Open-Sources exFAT File-System

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Yay GPL!

    Say what you want: GPL works. The Alternative for Samsung would have been to lose all rights to distribute Android.

    So, how do you think this would have gone with a non-copyleft license?

    Besides: GPLv2 already contains an implicit patent grant, so Samsung had better work this out — with the explicit GPL release (GPLv2 or later), they are obliged to ensure that downstream recipients aren’t restricted - as long as Samsung distributes the code¹. See http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents

    ¹: For Samsung this would at least be damage-minimization (of their own infringement): If Microsoft starts the patent-war, Samsung won’t lose the right to all GPL code in Linux, just the right to distribute this part (and the code is officially out).

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,779

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ArneBab View Post
    Besides: GPLv2 already contains an implicit patent grant, so Samsung had better work this out — with the explicit GPL release (GPLv2 or later)
    Yep, looks like Samsung forgot to remove the "or any later version" part. Looks like a mistake, since the Linux kernel itself doesn't require it.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    Yep, looks like Samsung forgot to remove the "or any later version" part. Looks like a mistake, since the Linux kernel itself doesn't require it.
    I don’t think they just forgot it, that would be too big an oversight. It could be part of the agreement with the conservancy, though - but both won’t be talking about that

Posting Permissions

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