Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supposedly GPL-Compliant FAT32

walterbyrd (182728) writes | more than 3 years ago

Patents 1

walterbyrd (182728) writes "Tuxera Inc., announced the release of a complete, GPL-compliant FAT32 replacement package for Android and Linux. But, I think the code is closed source and proprietary. Also, since the FAT file system is patent encumbered, I don't know if being GPL matters."
Link to Original Source

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Reasons why it is okay (1)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 3 years ago | (#34712274)

They'll say something like: it's "open core", or other nonsense. It's not GPL itself, but it is GPL compliant or compatible. Hey, the linker links it with GPL code, so it must be GPL compliant. Or try this one. We are the copyright owner of this module and we can choose how we license it. It is a proprietary module with a very nasty EULA, but we declare that it is license compatible with GPL code because our EULA makes clear that WE do not object to OUR binary module being linked with GPL code. How's that? (We don't care what authors of GPL code think about such linking.) Or this. The GPL code is "free" (no money changes hands) so no harm done. (Harm is only defined in terms of money, right? Threfore: collecting/sharing your personal info != harm)

What other great excuses can you think of to explain why its okay to infringe the copyrights of the authors of GPL code?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?