On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:44:15PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > Hi, > > On 25 Sep 2013, at 21:21, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:28:56PM +0200, Alexander Holler wrote: > >> > >> Maybe a silly question, but isn't exFAT protected by some MS owned > >> patents which might drive Linux users into the hand of MS lawyers as > >> already happened with FAT? > > Yes, it is. You cannot use exFAT without a Microsoft patent license > (unless you live in countries without software patents perhaps). Given that you that you are not a Microsoft representative, nor a Samsung employee, I don't understand how you can make such a definitive statement. > >> It would make me wonder if not. Maybe you could ask Samsung about > >> that too, when you are there. > > > > Because Samsung released the code under the GPLv2, and their lawyers > > understand what that means, should answer any question you might have > > about this. > > Sorry but you have no idea what you are talking about. Ah, that's a lovely way to engage in a conversation. > Samsung modified the GPL-ed FAT driver to make it work with exFAT. > Therefore their exFAT driver was GPL as a derived work. They got > caught and had to release the source code. And now you claim to be a Samsung representative again, I think your country has some bad liable laws you might wish to watch out for... This isn't going to go very far, so I'll just not respond anymore, it's not going to be productive, and given that I don't see your name on the code here, I don't see why I need to. Please stick to technical discussions about the code on the kernel mailing lists. Legal discussions can be left up to the lawyers, of which we are not. greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
