08.13.13
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, Kernel, Samsung at 11:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Quick Guide of license compatibility with GPL
Summary: A call for advice on how to handle another Samsung violation of the GPL and betrayal of the community
As a quick reminder, over 6 years ago we called for a boycott of Samsung, which proved that it didn’t care about freedom and actively worked against it. In 2 posts [1, 2] from the past few weeks we covered yet another violation of the GPL by Samsung. This one required a leak to be shown and we spoke to the leaker, who prefers to remain anonymous. We consulted internally to see how this can be dealt with.
“Not enough data to do more than guess,” iophk wrote, “I do recall that the SFLC disapproved of the ‘robin hood’ approach to freeing code that had been ripped off.
“This one required a leak to be shown and we spoke to the leaker, who prefers to remain anonymous.”“I guess it depends on the provenance of the code. If it is ripped off from the kernel then it comes under GPLv2 or later (IIRC). Then it comes down to v2 or v3. I like what v3 accomplishes, but I do not. like mixing copyright with patents in the same license. Can v3 provide any protection if Microsoft starts to claim to have patents on *FAT?”
This is an interesting possibility that we are exploring. Samsung’s GPL violations are in an implementation of exFAT, a very common extortion tool against Linux distributors. “Here is the latest info from the most recent kernel,” writes iophk. “It is v2 only.”
It is v3 which deals with patent provisions. iophk continues: “Linus likes v2 very much but seems to have removed the “or later” clause that I vaguely recollect being there. Can rxrz [the leaker] say which version of the kernel exfat-nofuse came from? If it is a later one, then maybe v2 is the only option. If it is an earlier one, there might be a choice between v2 and v3.”
He later, upon further investigation, adds: “Here’s the oldest commit in Git, which has the same preamble. So I’m not sure under which circumstances v3 could be used. It is certainly a safe bet with v2.”
“We could like to relay the leaker’s question to the wider community.”We spoke with the leaker of this code, who wrote: “I just wanted to do a good thing.
“But now I have decided to put the LICENSE file there, containing GPLv2, since Samsung has stolen that code initially from the Linux kernel tree. (I believe it fits this code the best, v3 may be better though, I don’t know)”
We could like to relay the leaker’s question to the wider community. To quote her, the leaker: “Could you please help the project and make up a LICENSE file content for it? It happens that I’m not too good with legal things myself…”
I promised to work with our community at Techrights or anyone else who reads this to address this issue. Any suggestions of ways forward from here? Or licensing? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, Google, Microsoft at 11:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
National Security Operations Center
Summary: The biggest source of SPAM (Windows) and privacy violations (Windows and Microsoft services) throws accusations of spam and privacy violations by Google
Thanks to Edward Snowden we now know a lot more about the NSA’s liaisons with Microsoft. Microsoft can no longer accuse Google of privacy violations with a straight face, can it? So what happens to the Scroogled PR campaign, which reportedly made another comeback? The Inquirer reports:
MARKETING GENIUSES in Redmond must be spinning in their chairs and high-fiving, having launched Microsoft’s latest anti-Google “scroogled” campaign.
This time around the Google Scroogle relates to emails and spam. “Google spams your inbox with ads that look like real emails,” it hollers.
“Google violates your privacy by reading every single word of every single email sent to and from Gmail accounts so they can better target you with ads. Now, they’re going one step further over the line by using that same personal information to spam your inbox with ads that look like real emails,” said the accompanying marketing information.
First of all, Microsoft lets the NSA hijack entire systems of over a billion people. So don’t tell us about privacy, Microsoft. It also lets the NSA eavesdrop on Skype and much of its server-based business (Azure, E-mail, and so on).
Secondly, Microsoft is the number one cause of SPAM (last pointed out a couple of days ago), so who the heck at Microsoft has the nerve to accuse Google of ‘spam’? Google is mostly a victim of this Windows-spewed SPAM.
Microsoft’s main product these days is surveillance/dossiers on people and of course a slew of abominable lies, such as the above. Shun Microsoft like you would shun an oppressive regime, which is what Microsoft is secretly advancing (while publicly pretending to pursue the opposite). Recall what Microsoft did in Russia. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Patents, Samsung at 10:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Swearing to protect corporations like Apple
Summary: Obama is expected to supersede another patent-induced ban — this time against a Korean company — and whether he does so or not, the patent system in the US (USPTO) loses its credibility
The patent system in the US is not working based on the state of the economy. Maybe it helps make the rich even richer, or maybe it helps drive innovation to China, the world’s rising superpower. American.com has this new article which deals with Obama’s focus on patent trolls [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11] — a subject that motivates some new blogs. This is essentially going after the small guys and leaving the rest, who occasionally suffer from those small guys, in tact. Towards the end the article mentions software patents too:
In conclusion, the Obama administration’s executive actions do not require Congressional approval, and will likely result in some modest improvement in transparency and increased PTO level of scrutiny of software patent applications. But serious Congressional policy debate likely will begin in this fall’s session, reflecting a significant opportunity to develop a common legislative agenda on Capitol Hill for much needed, focused bipartisan patent law reform addressing PAE litigation abuse.
PAE means patent trolls. It is a more polite term. Obama could be given the benefit of the doubt if he hadn’t helped Apple embargo Korean rivals (in reverse, removing ITC deterrence against Apple by Samsung). He intervened in the sanctions war by acting to unban the Apple products which a suitable authority decided to ban. Now that Samsung gets banned will Obama intervene again? Or dos hen only come to Apple’s rescue?
Samsung has suffered a big blow in the US over the weekend with a court issuing an import ban on some Samsung devices on grounds they violate two of Apple’s patents.
[...]
The Obama administration now has 60 days to decide whether to let the Samsung ban take effect, and may stoke accusations of favouritism if it decides to back the American Apple over South Korea’s Samsung.
If Obama’s staff can’t veto this decision, then it will show that the legal system in the US is just a farce with nationalist agenda. Either way, the fact that Obama’s staff members can intervene in lawsuits they know nothing about is itself proof of a broken, rogue, and arbitrary legal framework. This whole legal ‘anarchy’ serves to show that perhaps this whole system needs abolishing; slight reforms that change public perceptions won’t be enough. Reforming the patent system is like ‘reforming’ the massive surveillance apparatus. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux at 10:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Image by Alexandre Dulaunoy
Summary: Tor is stifled by complications associated with UEFI lock-in, which limits what can run on computers and lets companies/governments control computers remotely
Now that privacy is a hot subject, with a lot of people’s ‘paranoia’ confirmed to have been justified, there are many vigilant citizens or businesspeople who turn to privacy-respecting services, some of which, like secure E-mail companies in the US, shut down due to bullying from their government (Mega has a new services like that in New Zealand). We have just found out that EFI is impeding Tails development. For the uninitiated, Tails is a distribution of Debian GNU/Linux with Tor in it. Unlike Windows bundles [1, 2], this one is secure.
According to this new video, Jacob Appelbaum, a prominent Tor developer, confirms that EFI (and by extension UEFI) weakens user control. Towards the end of this new talk he speaks “garbage EFI stuff that’s force down our throats.”
How do tweakers of Linux who facilitate UEFI with their hacks feel about it? For most users, UEFI has almost nothing to offer. Boycott UEFI. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in IRC Logs at 3:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IRC Proceedings: August 4th, 2013
IRC Proceedings: August 5th, 2013
IRC Proceedings: August 6th, 2013
IRC Proceedings: August 7th, 2013
IRC Proceedings: August 8th, 2013
IRC Proceedings: August 9th, 2013
IRC Proceedings: August 10th, 2013
Enter the IRC channels now
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA