bzt wrote:
Gigasoft wrote:
You're saying that Samsung couldn't have licensed their software to you under the GPL unless Microsoft had given up their patent rights, therefore Microsoft does not have a valid claim.
That's absolutely not what I'm saying. I'm saying that MS agreed not to ask for royalty and agreed the exFAT driver to be licensed under GPL. And by the terms and conditions of GPL MS has no claim over derivative works of that code.
BTW, I've looked up, and MS did not licensed the patents to Samsung, they have explicitly licensed those to the Linux kernel, which is GPL. Here's the
original announcement, and here's a
legal statement from MS's tech licensing site.
They both say that MS has agreed for the exFAT driver to be included in Linux, which means accepting the terms and conditions of GPLv2, meaning they
licensed their patents for free and for everyone using that code.
It then becomes a question of whether your work that includes this driver constitutes a Linux derivative. From a GPL point of view, yes, I'd agree that your work would include work derived from the Linux kernel under the GPL.
But patent law is unrelated to copyright, and Microsoft granted their patent license to OIN members in Linux.
I'm guessing you're not a OIN member, and your derivative work is not Linux.
bzt wrote:
thewrongchristian wrote:
you're on the hook to defend your use and can't rely on the GPL2
Quite the contrary. You MUST rely on the rights granted by GPL. If you can prove on court that you adhere to the terms and conditions of the GPL, then there's absolutely nothing MS could do about it (legally).
That's fine and dandy in court against Samsung. But your rights granted under the GPL with Samsung code have naught to do with MS, they're rights to Samsung's copyrighted code, and use thereof.
Remember:
- Patent law is distinct to Copyright law.
- Microsoft are not Samsung.
Therefore GPL will mean diddly squat against a patent lawsuit by Microsoft, or at least, it'd be a risky defense to attempt.
bzt wrote:
Gigasoft wrote:
The license remains valid, and the recipient may, for example, run the program.
That's not how GPL works. If you have the right to run the Program, then you also have the right to redistribute and make derivative works of it. That's the whole point of Free Software and GPL!
thewrongchristian wrote:
MS licensed the patent royalty free to OIN members for use with the Linux kernel only
Simply put, GPL does not allow that.
Doesn't matter what GPL does and does not allow. All your defense might achieve would be to remove the ability for the Samsung code to be licensed under GPL within Linux.
It would not in any way invalidate a patent claim. In fact, without a valid GPL license, you've no rights to use or distribute the code in question period.
bzt wrote:
I'm going to quote the GPL license (again) for both of you:
Code:
We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses
Code:
if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
Because we're talking about the exFAT driver in the Linux kernel, here "Program" refers to the Linux kernel.
Cheers,
bzt
I'm no lawyer, and don't know the background on this portion of the GPL, but I suspect this is guarding against the copyright owner and the patent owner being the same entity.
Ie. Not allowing Microsoft to license their code under GPL, then a couple of years down the line coming after you with their patents that is covered by this code.
Samsung cannot grant those patent rights reserved for Microsoft. It's as simple as that.
Of course, I'm no lawyer, this is not legal advice, and this forum is not the place for that. If I were you, I'd seek legal counsel on this issue.