Samsung Accidentally Leaked The exFAT Linux Driver

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Samsung Accidentally Leaked The exFAT Linux Driver

Last month there was news of a native Linux driver for Microsoft's exFAT file-system. It turns out that the driver wasn't developed through any clean-room reverse-engineering but was rather the apparent rebadging of a Samsung exFAT driver for Linux...

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

[r1348]

This is a blatant licence violation and Samsung has the right to go medieval on his ass. Will they? Probably not, but I'd expect a cease&desist pretty soon.

[Ericg]

This is a blatant licence violation and Samsung has the right to go medieval on his ass. Will they? Probably not, but I'd expect a cease&desist pretty soon.

Probably, but I know when I saw this code pop up originally i cloned the git directory. If you follow the GPL violations link, theres a link to an issue on the github page about the license situation. The developer makes a really valid point, due to the nature of git, it is seriously TRIVIAL to fork and clone this driver... The code's out there. The code will ALWAYS be out there now. This story alone probably got that guy 10+ more git clone's to his tree in 30seconds JUST to make sure that SOMEONE had a working copy of the code.

The cat's out of the bag, you can't put the genie back in the bottle... now all there is to see is what Samsung is gonna TRY to do.

[brosis]

"However a certain user "rxrz" went a bit too far with his actions"

Certain "Andrei F." went a bit too far with his actions for sure. Linux has inofficial exFAT driver, oh no!, it is SO bad, lets blabber loud how bad it is, lets take down git repo so Linux user can access exFAT - I mean its written for Linux kernel (Android) and hereby illegal!

Certain "Andrei F." is Pavlik Morozov and deserves the same fate.

What an ass.

[c117152]

Probably, but I know when I saw this code pop up originally i cloned the git directory. If you follow the GPL violations link, theres a link to an issue on the github page about the license situation. The developer makes a really valid point, due to the nature of git, it is seriously TRIVIAL to fork and clone this driver... The code's out there. The code will ALWAYS be out there now. This story alone probably got that guy 10+ more git clone's to his tree in 30seconds JUST to make sure that SOMEONE had a working copy of the code.

The cat's out of the bag, you can't put the genie back in the bottle... now all there is to see is what Samsung is gonna TRY to do.

You're implying they actually care. They don't. They still need to pay licensing to Microsoft so it changes nothing.

If anything, there's a chance someone will go over the code and write "supposedly white room" specs which one of the FOSS driver will then go on to use. I even suspect the specs could be released anonymously since the burden of proof doesn't lay on the accused*, but on the plaintiff*. In this case Microsoft will need to sue John Doe for the violation, at which point a FSF rep could testify the specs could have been made legitimately.

*Yeah, I know it's not criminal court. But it sounds better

[Serge]

Probably, but I know when I saw this code pop up originally i cloned the git directory. If you follow the GPL violations link, theres a link to an issue on the github page about the license situation. The developer makes a really valid point, due to the nature of git, it is seriously TRIVIAL to fork and clone this driver... The code's out there. The code will ALWAYS be out there now. This story alone probably got that guy 10+ more git clone's to his tree in 30seconds JUST to make sure that SOMEONE had a working copy of the code.

The cat's out of the bag, you can't put the genie back in the bottle... now all there is to see is what Samsung is gonna TRY to do.

As for what Samsung is going to TRY to do, the possibilities are pretty limited I think. I don't think we'll see legally distributable GPL code come out of this. Most likely Samsung cannot GPL their code even if they wanted to. I figure Samsung's options are to either turn a blind eye to the infringement, c&d the infringement, or try to work with their upstream partners to make the infringement a non-infringement. That last option is probably a dead end for Samsung, so more likely we'll see them go route 1 or route 2.

[birdie]

You're implying they actually care. They don't. They still need to pay licensing to Microsoft so it changes nothing.

If anything, there's a chance someone will go over the code and write "supposedly white room" specs which one of the FOSS driver will then go on to use. I even suspect the specs could be released anonymously since the burden of proof doesn't lay on the accused*, but on the plaintiff*. In this case Microsoft will need to sue John Doe for the violation, at which point a FSF rep could testify the specs could have been made legitimately.

*Yeah, I know it's not criminal court. But it sounds better

A good idea, indeed. Someone please notify FSF about this brilliant opportunity.

[Morpheus]

I'd rather see exFAT burn in hell with its patents, it's sad that we see this attempt instead.

[prodigy_]

I'd rather see exFAT burn in hell with its patents, it's sad that we see this attempt instead.

+1 /10chars

[WorBlux]

As for what Samsung is going to TRY to do, the possibilities are pretty limited I think. I don't think we'll see legally distributable GPL code come out of this. Most likely Samsung cannot GPL their code even if they wanted to. I figure Samsung's options are to either turn a blind eye to the infringement, c&d the infringement, or try to work with their upstream partners to make the infringement a non-infringement. That last option is probably a dead end for Samsung, so more likely we'll see them go route 1 or route 2.

But if the can't GPL thier code, and distribute it anyways as a kernel module in some kernel, that's a copyright violation itself. If the M$ patents are the issue, then port F2FS to windows and mac.