Tuxera signs up with Microsoft

[Posted August 26, 2009 by corbet]

From:		Mikko Valimaki <mikko-AT-tuxera.com>
To:		mikko-AT-tuxera.com
Subject:		PR: Tuxera, the NTFS-3G File System Provider, Signs Intellectual Property Agreement with Microsoft
Date:		Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:03:40 +0300
Message-ID:		<4A94DE4C.5050401@tuxera.com>

Press release
August 26, 2009

Tuxera, the NTFS-3G File System Provider, Signs Intellectual Property 
Agreement with Microsoft
Announces Tuxera exFAT for Embedded Systems

HELSINKI, FINLAND: Today Tuxera Ltd, the company founded by the leading 
open source NTFS project NTFS-3G, announced extensive cooperation with 
Microsoft. As part of this cooperation, Tuxera has signed an 
Intellectual Property Agreement, and has joined Microsoft's exFAT 
Program, which will enable the launch of a new exFAT driver. In 
addition, Tuxera has joined Microsoft's Interop Vendor Alliance, a 
community of software and hardware vendors working together to enhance 
interoperability with Microsoft systems.

With the agreements, Tuxera becomes the first independent software 
vendor to offer exFAT drivers. Microsoft supports exFAT as the first 
choice for many file system interoperability needs, including flash 
memory in consumer devices. Further, the SD Card Association has chosen 
exFAT as the standard file system for their SDXC cards. Tuxera has now 
access to the exFAT specifications, Microsoft's source code 
implementation of exFAT, and testing and verification tools. Tuxera exAT 
for Embedded Sytems will be first available for Linux.

"We are looking forward to working with an increasing number of OEM 
customers. Adding exFAT into our existing NTFS product portfolio is the 
logical step to help our customers solve any interoperable file system 
need they have," comments Szabolcs Szakacsits, Tuxera CTO and the 
founder of NTFS-3G.

"As an open source company, we feel excited to sign an intellectual 
property agreement with Microsoft. They are a great partner, and I am 
confident that our agreements, and this collaboration, will ensure a 
bright future for file system interoperability and data portability that 
benefits device manufacturers and consumers alike," says Mikko Välimäki, 
Tuxera CEO.

For further information:

Mikko Välimäki, CEO
Tel. +358-50-598-0498
email: mikko at tuxera dot com

Szabolcs Szakacsits, President and CTO
Tel. +358-40-823-3360
email: szaka at tuxera dot com

About Tuxera: Tuxera offers NTFS and exFAT file system drivers that 
guarantee plug and play Windows interoperability. Building on the 
success of open source, Tuxera's industry-standard NTFS-3G driver has 
over 10 million installations. Tuxera was the first to implement 
reliable NTFS read/write support on Linux, Mac OS X, and other systems. 
Tuxera is also the first to offer exFAT for any system based on 
extensive collaboration with Microsoft including intellectual property 
and alliance agreements. Tuxera's customers include leading software, 
semiconductor, and consumer electronics companies. Together we design 
the future of file system interoperability. See more from 
http://www.tuxera.com/

About exFAT: Extended file allocation table (exFAT) is a new file system 
that is a scalable solution to the growing needs of mobile personal 
storages. See more from: 
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa914353.aspx

About Interop Vendor Alliance: The Interop Vendor Alliance is a 
community of software and hardware vendors working together to enhance 
interoperability with Microsoft systems. See more from: 
http://interopvendoralliance.com/

to post comments

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 15:40 UTC (Wed) by simlo (guest, #10866) [Link] (15 responses)

As I read GPL you can't ship closed source drivers along with a kernel in an embedded device. That would require the kernel to be LGPL. So for it to be "legal" it must be based on FUSE...

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 16:12 UTC (Wed) by ariveira (guest, #57833) [Link]

ntfs-3g is FUSE based I expect the ExFAT driver to be FUSE based too

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 16:34 UTC (Wed) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link] (11 responses)

Which part of GPL are you referring to? My understanding was that it's okay once you do not statically link it into the kernel but load it as a module instead. At the very least that's commonly tolerated practice (see broadcom wireless in linksys routers as an example).

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 16:38 UTC (Wed) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (10 responses)

Given that turning a module into linked-in code is basicaly a mechanical transformation, it's not clear that it's relevant from a copyright point of view. We really have no idea where the derived work boundry is here, and I suspect what your lawyer tells you will depend to a certain extent on what you want to hear. It'd be fascinating to actually gain some case law on this topic, but the risks of losing are sufficiently high for both sides that it's not obviously in anyone's interest to let things get that far - hence the commonly tolerated practice of one side shipping binary modules and the other side claiming that they're all illegal, but nothing happening anyway.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 17:31 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (guest, #2330) [Link] (1 responses)

Actually, a good lawyer is going to be extremely cautious on matters like this: if you ask "If I take action X, am I taking a legal risk?", the lawyer's going to be off and running, generating lots of billable hours giving you all the possible scenarios where something can go wrong. He/she isn't just going to tell you what you want to hear.

FUSE is in user space, so I would think that a FUSE filesystem can have a GPL-incompatible license. But IANAL.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 20:13 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Fortunately, the CEO himself is a good lawyer, so he can run around (which he does, running) as much as he wants for free :-)

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 17:33 UTC (Wed) by jzbiciak (guest, #5246) [Link] (7 responses)

I thought that the kernel's licence was "GPL+exception", where the "exception" was that loadable modules are OK as long as they report their license correctly and only referred to symbols that were exported for that license. There are some symbols that only GPL code can use (because they're "too internal" to the kernel), and some that are exported for all modules. This in effect creates a kernel interface with a somewhat clearer delineation of what's on the GPL side and what's not.

Did I miss something?

The fact that something can be linked into the kernel doesn't imply anything. The NVidia proprietary driver could be linked with the kernel through the mechanical means you mention. The argument is that if it must be linked with kernel internal interfaces (ie. the ones exported as GPL-only symbols), it is at that point that the code is seen as clearly derived from the kernel and subject to the GPL.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 17:45 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Linus denies there is any such exception

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/15/262

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 17:46 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (5 responses)

You missed something: there is no special GPL exemption for loadable modules. They must comply with GPLv2, period. As has been remarked, the fact that they are a module does not itself say much about compliance; it's really a matter of whether the module is a derived product of the kernel or not. Lots of modules pretty clearly are. A Windows driver shoehorned in with ndiswrapper clearly is not.

In between, though, is a very fuzzy line. GPL-only exports are an attempt to create a little clarity there; the reasoning is that, if your module needs one of those symbols, it really has to be a derived product. But the only sure way that line could be made less fuzzy would be through the creation of legal precedents, and, as mjg59 pointed out, that's a sufficiently scary minefield that few want to tread there.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 18:16 UTC (Wed) by JoeBuck (guest, #2330) [Link]

In this case, we're talking about a FUSE filesystem. It's userspace code, it is not a kernel module.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 21:30 UTC (Wed) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] (3 responses)

corbet wrote:

More exactly, anyone distributing modules whose licensing doesn't comply with the terms of GPLv2, and which module is a derivative work of someone else's code in the kernel, commits the tort of copyright violation against the latter person.

Fuzzy line? Not as much as you might think. The key point of contention, which few in these discussions ever seem willing to actually study, is the legal term of art "derivative work" -- and it's really not all that difficult to understand. In USA law, the ruling case (concerning non-literal copying of copyrighted works) is CAI v. Altai, Inc., (2nd Circuit, 1992), which provided a mechanism (abstraction, filtration, comparison) for judges to isolate "expressive elements" of the work alleged to have been derived from, as opposed to "functional elements". Purely functional elements within a copyrighted work (elements dictated by efficiency, elements dictated by external factors, standard programming techniques and program features), along with elements taken from the public domain, inherently don't qualify for copyright coverage in the first place. (Why inherently? Because of 17 U.S.C. 102(b), clarifying that if you want a monopoly properly covered by patent, i.e., "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery", then you can't get it using copyright.)

Don't take my word for that, Jon. Read Justice John M. Walker's opinion. It's pretty short, and very clear.

Among other things, on account of those considerations, the oft-heard contention that works needing the kernel's GPL-only exported symbols are inherently derivative works of (something in) the kernel seems doubtful on its face: Those seem like the very picture of a "functional element", in which category Walker (quoting Nimmer) lists elements dictated by "compatibility requirements of other programs with which a program is designed to operate in conjunction".

The notion that derivative work theory has anything to do with the nature of linking, or of use or non-use of this-or-that programming interface, has always been hooey. It's about time that these misconceptions were dropped.

Rick Moen
rick@linuxmafia.com

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 27, 2009 4:58 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

Walker's opinion actually creates some confusion. He shows how code that exists only to interface to an API, within an application program, is not protectable. He doesn't distinguish that the expression in the creation of an API that serves to applications is protectable and that unprotectable code that is derived from the API is indeed a derivative work of it. He doesn't point out that his version of the test (filtering the work derived from) might show the API as a protectable work when the lower court's version of the text (filtering the derivative work) would not. He also puts in some text regarding "code that exists to fulfill expectations of the application" that further confuses the issue.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 28, 2009 22:21 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

I would also *feel* that if an API is declared "GPL only" by its author, then a Judge would be inclined, at least, to bow to the *clearly* *expressed* wishes of the author.

It's one thing giving a deriver the benefit of the doubt where the law is unclear and the original author's wishes are unclear. It's a whole different kettle of fish where the original author has made their wishes abundantly clear - if the law isn't clear then benefit of the doubt should go to the author. I know it's not really a legal principle, but I do feel that if someone goes asking for trouble they have no grounds for complaint when they get it!

Cheers,
Wol

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 28, 2009 22:28 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I would also *feel* that if an API is declared "GPL only" by its author, then a Judge would be inclined, at least, to bow to the *clearly* *expressed* wishes of the author.

That is definitely the ethical thing to do where Free Software is involved. The developer gets no "consideration" (that means money or some other valuable) except for compliance with his license, and if you can't comply you shouldn't use his code.

But I just re-read Walker's opinion in CAI v. Altai, and he doesn't mention the author's intentions at all in his long and detailed description of how to determine if a work is infringing. He goes entirely by copyright law.

So, it doesn't seem to me the judge is going to agree with us.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 17:31 UTC (Wed) by szaka (guest, #12740) [Link] (1 responses)

The open source drivers are FUSE based, the commercial NTFS and exFAT drivers are in-kernel.

In-kernel driver or FUSE based?

Posted Aug 26, 2009 17:47 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Just to clarify, are the commercial drivers proprietary (commercial and proprietary is not synonymous) and includes a patent license as well? Do you believe it is legal to do that in a in-kernel drive while the kernel is under the GPL license?

Tuxera signs up with Microsoft

Posted Aug 26, 2009 18:45 UTC (Wed) by Skedyagpic (guest, #60375) [Link]

Sounds like either tuxera is doing FAT in userspace, on embeded devices! or they're distributing a derivative work of the kernel, under proprietary license (Violating the GPL). I await the lawsuit. Good thing I donate monthly to the SFLC and FSF. You all should too.

https://my.fsf.org/donate
http://www.softwarefreedom.org/donate/

Tuxera signs up with Microsoft

Posted Aug 26, 2009 19:05 UTC (Wed) by BenHutchings (subscriber, #37955) [Link]

exFAT is very different from FAT. This doesn't seem at all connected with the "VFAT" long filename patents.

Tuxera signs up with Microsoft

Posted Aug 26, 2009 21:46 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (2 responses)

There is not anything in the press release to indicate that they are
shipping proprietary modules or that they are shipping even a proprietary
FUSE userland application.

There is no indication of anything of that nature.

The only thing that is in press release is that they signed a agreement
with Microsoft to get access to the exFAT documentation and join their
vendor program.

So everybody seems to be jumping to conclusions here.

--------------------

And yes the GPL is fuzzy.

> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a
> storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the
> scope of this License.

Shipping a embedded product running Linux is not mere aggregation.

So there is no exception of that sort to cover your ass if your shipping
proprietary software in a embedded device running Linux. Whether or not your
violating the license in that state is best described as "Not Defined" by
the license and if the license attempted to clarify it's likely that the
clarification would be invalid.

The GPL does not have the legal authority to dictate what is "derivative"
software. Its a legally defined copyright concept and is ultimately up for
a judge to decide.

Tuxera signs up with Microsoft

Posted Aug 26, 2009 22:04 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (1 responses)

The implementation is clearly proprietary. Care for a volume deal? Among other things, you get "30-50 times more file system performance compared to the generic open source drivers." I can't tell if it's kernel- or user-space, though.

Tuxera signs up with Microsoft

Posted Aug 26, 2009 23:07 UTC (Wed) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

Well the page your linking to there is talking about NTFS with that volume
deal and it's targetting companies that cannot use the NTFS-3G code and
related tools because it's GPL'd.

I suspect the promise of 50x improvement in performance over generic drivers
is due to the fact that a embedded programmer would be able to work
directly
with the NTFS-related functionality by using the code directly in their
applications instead of going through the file system/fuse interfaces. Much
of it is, of course, marketing hyperbole, but in low-resource environments
I can certainly see the advantage of embedding the ability to use NTFS
storage directly into a application.

So at least with the NTFS stuff it's apparently talking about dual-
licensing the code and consulting services.

I wouldn't be surprised either way if Exfat support was proprietary or will
be open eventually or whatever.

(and I wonder why with webkit browsers they always insist on inserting
newlines everywere while with firefox they don't...)

we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft

Posted Aug 26, 2009 23:42 UTC (Wed) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (5 responses)

When you make a pact with the devil, it always seems like a good idea at the time.

we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft

Posted Aug 27, 2009 2:37 UTC (Thu) by MattPerry (guest, #46341) [Link] (2 responses)

Agreed. History has shown us that this will end badly for Tuxera.

we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft

Posted Aug 27, 2009 4:12 UTC (Thu) by tdwebste (guest, #18154) [Link]

Can I safely use the exFAT driver supplied by Tuxera/Microsoft or do I open
myself and the companies I work for, to patent suits from Microsoft in the
future?

we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft

Posted Aug 28, 2009 6:09 UTC (Fri) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link]

Exactly which history? Could you provide an example of a case where signing agreement with Microsoft ended up badly for the other party?

we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft

Posted Aug 27, 2009 5:47 UTC (Thu) by dufkaf (guest, #10358) [Link] (1 responses)

My brain throwed internal compiler error when parsing the "As an open source company, we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft." sentence.

we feel excited to sign an intellectual property agreement with Microsoft

Posted Sep 1, 2009 1:50 UTC (Tue) by no_treble (guest, #49534) [Link]

Agreed. My first thought was, "Oh, no... they drank the kool-aid".

SDXC

Posted Aug 27, 2009 9:46 UTC (Thu) by meuh (guest, #22042) [Link] (4 responses)

Why on earth did the SD Card Association chosen exFAT as file system for SDXC cards.

Hardware vendors will have to pay fees for a working SDXC cards support in their phone, camera, music player, all-in-one printers, etc. And users will have to upgrade to Windows Vista in order to read such media (you don't own a PC ? bad luck, you can't access to your photos).

SDXC

Posted Aug 27, 2009 10:48 UTC (Thu) by bangert (subscriber, #28342) [Link] (3 responses)

Perhaps, in part due to software patents, it is more dificult to develop a new, open and comparable
filesystem standard than to continue to pay 3 cents per device to MS.

If some patent holder/troll were to assert rights on exFAT, it would attack MS and not the members of
the SD Card Association. Thats rather convenient.

SDXC

Posted Aug 27, 2009 15:45 UTC (Thu) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] (2 responses)

"If some patent holder/troll were to assert rights on exFAT, it would attack MS and not the members of
the SD Card Association. Thats rather convenient."

I'm waiting for the reasoning. IIRC, if they ship or even own an infringing device/code, they are open for suit.

SDXC

Posted Aug 27, 2009 17:43 UTC (Thu) by tdwebste (guest, #18154) [Link] (1 responses)

The patent troll won't attack MS.
U.S. Patent Application 20090164440, containing the Microsoft exFAT
specification is owned by Microsoft.

Also Microsoft is licensing exFAT
http://www.microsoft.com/iplicensing/productDetail.aspx?
productTitle=exFAT%20File%20System%20Licensing%20Program

If I use the exFAT driver supplied by Tuxera/Microsoft either personally or
with a company I work, will a license fee be required Microsoft now or in
the future? Will Microsoft withdraw licenses in the future, restricting
access to only Microsoft friendly businesses/individuals?

SDXC

Posted Aug 27, 2009 18:10 UTC (Thu) by tdwebste (guest, #18154) [Link]

Perhaps a SD manufacture decides use ext2,3,4 on some devices.

Will Microsoft threating that manufacture, using the exFAT license with
cancellation or increased fees or increase licensing paper work, until they
stop producing SD with ext2,3,4?