OSDev.org

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.

thewrongchristian wrote:you're on the hook to defend your use and can't rely on the GPL2

Gigasoft wrote:The license remains valid, and the recipient may, for example, run the program.

thewrongchristian wrote:MS licensed the patent royalty free to OIN members for use with the Linux kernel only

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses

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.

bzt wrote:

eekee wrote:Besides, I don't think a patent lawsuit over an independant implementation could have anything to do with the copyright on Linux's exfat driver.

Of course not, but we weren't talking about independent implementations. We were talking about MS suing a derivative work of the GPL'd Linux exFAT driver.

bzt wrote:(In my country's law you can't, copyright always belongs to the author and to the author only. A company or organization can only have the copyright if the software was created on a machine owned by them and written by an employee paid by them to write that particular software.)

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.

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).

• Patent law is distinct to Copyright law.
• Microsoft are not Samsung.

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.

bzt wrote: I'm going to quote the GPL license (again) for both of you:

Code: Select all

We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses

Code: Select all

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

eekee wrote:* If MS sues over the GPL, would they lose their right to distribute WSL and any Android they may have? I imagine that could be a semi-serious blow to them.

Solar wrote:

eekee wrote:* If MS sues over the GPL, would they lose their right to distribute WSL and any Android they may have? I imagine that could be a semi-serious blow to them.

Violating the GPL with regards to work A derived of work X does not make you a "GPL pariah" with regards to work B derived of work Y. It might not even touch work C derived of work X.

bzt wrote: The exFAT driver in the Linux is GPL licensed, meaning MS must have given up royalty (and they have announced that they have given up)

Kazinsal wrote:you do not have rights to use the exFAT patents unless otherwise granted those rights by Microsoft Legal.

Kazinsal wrote:Your statement is incorrect, because you can slap the GPL on just about any work you want.

Kazinsal wrote:It may entirely be the case that Linux is in violation of the GPL due to the exFAT patents not being "royalty-free"

Kazinsal wrote:This is however not the place to discuss fringe law and "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" grade legal nitpicking.

iansjack wrote:Surely it's the legal department of Microsoft that you need to ask?

iansjack wrote:But the licence from Microsoft only applies to Linux. If you want to use it in another OS you will need permission from Microsoft.

Solar wrote:

eekee wrote:* If MS sues over the GPL, would they lose their right to distribute WSL and any Android they may have? I imagine that could be a semi-serious blow to them.

Violating the GPL with regards to work A derived of work X does not make you a "GPL pariah" with regards to work B derived of work Y. It might not even touch work C derived of work X.