Weekly Edition
Return to the Kernel page
| |||||||||||||
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source
The Software Freedom Conservancy has announced
that it has helped Samsung to release a version of its exFAT filesystem
implementation under the GPL. This filesystem had previously been unofficially released after a copy leaked out
of Samsung. "Conservancy's primary goal, as always, was to assist
and advise toward the best possible resolution to the matter that complied
fully with the GPL. Conservancy is delighted that the correct outcome has
been reached: a legitimate, full release from Samsung of all relevant
source code under the terms of Linux's license, the GPL, version 2."
(Log in to post comments)
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 14:53 UTC (Fri) by Darkmere (subscriber, #53695) [Link]
How is the Patent situation of this code? I seem to recall it being pretty viciously litigated by Microsoft a while back, but I can't find a mention on the patent status right off the bat.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 14:56 UTC (Fri) by ssam (subscriber, #46587) [Link]
Doesn't stop FAT being in the kernel.
If this was in the kernel it would be up to the distros to decide whether to build and ship it. They make similar decisions about lots of code with compile time options.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 15:05 UTC (Fri) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
The patent fights were about the long file names in FAT, not all of FAT. The patent was thrown out in the US by FTC: http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/03/ms-patent/
Regarding the patent situation for exFAT: I would not touch this code right now, it looks like a patent bomb to me.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 15:26 UTC (Fri) by ssam (subscriber, #46587) [Link]
but the FAT code was in the kernel for many years before this ruling. had a decision been made by kernel devs that FAT long file name patent was not a dangerous one?
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 15:31 UTC (Fri) by armijn (subscriber, #3653) [Link]
Not that I know of (and a kernel dev might better answer this), but remember that code went in in 1999 or 2000, when the software patent landscape and the market looked significantly different, so it can't be compared. A lot happened in 13 years.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 17, 2013 1:15 UTC (Sat) by tterribe (✭ supporter ✭, #66972) [Link]
You guys don't remember your LWN history: https://lwn.net/Articles/338981/ (also holy crap, that was four years ago).
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 21:59 UTC (Fri) by kreijack (guest, #43513) [Link]
IANAL, but I think that the GPL license is related to the Samsung *source* code copyright; instead the patent is related to the /copyright/ of *ideas/algorithms* implementation; the last "copyright" word has to be intended in a more general meaning.
What I mean is that even if the source code is released under GPL, that doesn't affect any Microsoft rights of the exFAT patents.
So if you want to ship the Samsung *compiled* code you have to respect the GPL requirements, and you have to ship the source too; moreover you must have a license from Microsoft for selling/distributing the *compiled* code.
The GPL is *another* requirements to the Samsung exFAT code other than the Microsoft patents obligations.
May be that shipping the code, is legal; but for sure you need a Microsoft license for shipping the compiled code or you are in risk to be sued.
That happened in TomTom vs Microsoft court case, related to the FAT32 patents. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._TomTom). It must to be noted that Microsoft never prohibit Linus to ship the source code of the FAT32 in the linux kernel. But sued TomTom when it tried to ship the compiled code.
But I don't know what happens if you ship (like Samsung does) the source code and an user
To me it seems a way too simple to circumvent the patents obligations.
GB
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 17, 2013 19:29 UTC (Sat) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link]
You confuse copyrights and patents.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 18, 2013 4:12 UTC (Sun) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
No I don't think he did. It is very possible to have software that is legally restricted by the GPL and also be legally restricted by patents. True they are different things, but they both can impact the legal restrictions on software use and distribution.
It is true that if ExFAT is a GPL derived code then Samsung has a legal obligation to offer source code versions to all receivers of the program.
It is also true that if ExFAT is covered by Microsoft patents then Samsung or the receiver of the program is legally responsible to get a patent license from Microsoft.
The only thing to call into question is at what point does one infringe on the Microsoft if Exfat requires a patent license. It may happen during shipping and duplication of the code, but the patent may only kick in when it's running on hardware. It just depends on what exactly the patent covers.
For example; if the patent has in the claims that one of the steps indicates the software interaction with the hardware.. then as long as you don't have the software installed on a system then you are not liable for patent infringement. So it may be legal to ship the source code, but once you compile it and ship it on hardware then you are infringing Microsoft's patent.
It's all very terrible and illogical, but don't expect Intellectual Property stuff to make any sense at all. The whole thing on what patents and copyright covers is completely arbitrary.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 18, 2013 8:56 UTC (Sun) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link]
"the patent is related to the /copyright/ of *ideas/algorithms* implementation" is a fundamentally nonsensical statement confusing patents and copyrights.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 18, 2013 9:29 UTC (Sun) by kreijack (guest, #43513) [Link]
you forgot to add the last part of sentence:
"..the last "copyright" word has to be intended in a more general meaning..." May be my English is not perfect but the sense is here.
Anyway I found this page
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents
which highlights a sentence of the point 7 of GPLv2:
"7 [...] For example, 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."
If I understood correctly, Samsung could not be in position to ship the code (both the source and the Program) at all.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 18, 2013 9:39 UTC (Sun) by SLi (subscriber, #53131) [Link]
Yeah, it's conceivable they would not be in a position to ship it.
Nevertheless, copyrights and patents are two very different things (and trademarks are the third category of IPR most often talked about). Copyrights cover the expression, patents cover the idea.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 18, 2013 9:05 UTC (Sun) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
The patent situation? Well, since this is about pure software and software is mathematics, there can't be any; neither in the EU nor in the US.
You can't just get catatonic for perhaps some illegally granted patents. The only course of action is to ignore them in the first place. Because not only are they illegal, but it's also impossible to clear them in the first place http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130715054823358
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 19, 2013 15:47 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It's not nearly that clear cut.
There is really no such 'patents cannot cover math'. All patents do is cover algorithms. That is it. A series of steps to accomplish some goal. Since all algorithms can be expressed in math then all patents cover nothing but math, right?
Instead, what can be covered by patents is very arbitrary. Some times of scientific discoveries can be patented, but not other types, for example.
Don't try to make sense of it. There is no sense. The only thing you can do is get a lawyer who has the ability to to site court history and knows the lingo properly to tell you how likely you are infringing on something.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 22, 2013 11:34 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
> Since all algorithms can be expressed in math then all patents cover
> nothing but math, right?
Not at all. Of course everything can be expressed mathematically, but that does not mean it _is_ mathematics. You can patent a screw, and describe it completely mathematically, as a series of functions. The patent is on the screw, and not on the mathematics. You can use those formulae to calculate as many screws as you want, as long as you don't produce them as tangible items.
See also: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110908075658894
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 15:54 UTC (Fri) by heijo (guest, #88363) [Link]
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 16:28 UTC (Fri) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] heijo wrote: Source comes in versioned zips I made a git repository of the Samsung exfat releases, if you're interested.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 16, 2013 22:28 UTC (Fri) by heftig (guest, #73632) [Link]
I tried integrating it into the ZEN kernel tree, but the code doesn't seem to be compatible with 3.10. Ran into quite a lot of compile errors.
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 18, 2013 18:13 UTC (Sun) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
Yes, it appears to compile against ~3.4, but it's not hard to fix it up against 3.10 - try it :)
Samsung releases exFAT filesystem source Posted Aug 19, 2013 14:21 UTC (Mon) by bkuhn (subscriber, #58642) [Link] Indeed, and I'd welcome merge requests into the git repository for the exfat code I created if someone wants to make improvements.
|
|||||||||||||