Gigasoft wrote:
First of all, that's not even a "sentence in the GPL", it's a Wikipedia quote.
Don't say you haven't actually read the original GPL.
Here's a copy for you. GPLv2, section 6:
Quote:
Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
Gigasoft wrote:
The GPL contains no promise that the rights holder will not engage in any particular activity. The prohibition on imposing further restrictions applies to the licensee when he redistributes the artifact.
And Linux is that licensee who redistributes the GPL'd code. What is your question supposed to be exactly?
Gigasoft wrote:
they are of course free to create non-public variants of their ExFAT driver
Obviously, but we are talking about
one particular code that they licensed under GPL. This discussion is about that code, and that code only.
Gigasoft wrote:
The GPL is entirely a matter between you and Samsung. It does not bind Microsoft in any way.
Yes it does, section 7 binds MS too, and you have already concluded that Samsung is bound by the GPL. Neither Samsung nor MS can legally stop you from using the Linux kernel's source (as long as you adhere to the GPL terms of course).
Gigasoft wrote:
They licensed those patents to Samsung.
No, they provided the patents not to Samsung, but to the Linux kernel (GPL wouldn't allow otherwise).
Gigasoft wrote:
Redistributing the code is a violation of the patent
Here's where the problem comes in. It can't be a violation according to the GPL. GPL section 7 explicitly states that
if that would be the case, then the exFAT driver couldn't be distributed in the Linux kernel:
Quote:
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.
So the one and only way for MS to have a GPL'd exFAT driver in Linux is to give up asking for royalty for all those who receive copies (and who also have the right to create derivative works from the Linux source).
Gigasoft wrote:
Anyone can sue anyone for any reason.
Not so. When they file a case to the court in the EU, they must refer the law article which they think was violated. In EU law no such article exists, there's nothing to refer to, so the case will be thrown back as incomplete and formally invalid without any actual trial. And if they mistakenly refer to EPC Article 52, then it's going to be thrown back because patents do not apply to computer programs, again, without any trial.
"Anyone can sue anyone for any reason"? Thank God that
we're not living in America!
Gigasoft wrote:
The fact that something relates to computer software, doesn't in itself mean it can't be patented.
Nobody said that. We are not talking about inventions that have a software component too, the exFAT patents and the exFAT driver in the Linux source are purely about computer software, computer software only and nothing else. EPC Article 52 absolutely clear that "programs for computers" are not regarded as inventions for the purpose of granting European patents.
Like it or not, all EU developers can use all software patents for free, and there's nothing MS could do about it outside of the USA. For example MS sued TomTom in federal court, and not in EU court; and they asked for banning the
import of TomTom devices into the USA, and not that TomTom should stop selling their devices altogether.
Cheers,
bzt