It has to be GPLv2 for one simple reason
Samsung are distributing their devices (or specifically tablets) with kernel mode exFAT support - this driver calls into the VFS layer etc. and can be said to derive from the Linux kernel in a meaningful way. Therefore, in order for Samsung to legally ship this binary module pre-installed on their devices, it would have to be licensed as GPLv2.
It may be covered by patent law in certain countries, but purely from a copyright perspective, whether or not Samsung signed an NDA with Microsoft, they cannot legally distribute this driver on their devices unless they release the source for it under GPLv2 (which it appears they have). This is the reason so many Android closed source driver blobs are user space and use a transition layer - it can then be argued they do not derive from the kernel source and so don't have to be GPLv2.
The case is clear - copyright wise - this has to be GPLv2 or Samsung are distributing it illegally, regardless of any agreement with Microsoft.
Samsung are distributing their devices (or specifically tablets) with kernel mode exFAT support - this driver calls into the VFS layer etc. and can be said to derive from the Linux kernel in a meaningful way. Therefore, in order for Samsung to legally ship this binary module pre-installed on their devices, it would have to be licensed as GPLv2.
It may be covered by patent law in certain countries, but purely from a copyright perspective, whether or not Samsung signed an NDA with Microsoft, they cannot legally distribute this driver on their devices unless they release the source for it under GPLv2 (which it appears they have). This is the reason so many Android closed source driver blobs are user space and use a transition layer - it can then be argued they do not derive from the kernel source and so don't have to be GPLv2.
The case is clear - copyright wise - this has to be GPLv2 or Samsung are distributing it illegally, regardless of any agreement with Microsoft.
Comment