Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL

Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL by Dylan16807 on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @03:10PM (#6092245)

1. Even if that's the current legal theory it's bullshit, and I can run code without having copies in ram if I need to.

2. 'if they are permitted by copyright law' Fair Use is part of copyright law, has that specific defense been challenged when it comes to software execution and caches in RAM?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL by dllthomas on Tuesday July 23, 2013 @07:05PM (#6093495)

Regarding 1, I really don't believe you can run code without copies, or copies of a derivitave work, being made in the process.

That said, I can't read a book without reflections in my eyes...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL by Dylan16807 on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:29AM (#6096711)

I could run it directly out of a ramdisk, or maybe transfer it to an embedded processor that can run it directly off the flash chip without even a processor cache. There's a whole variety of ridiculous things I could do to avoid the ridiculous restriction.

In practice I would trust fair use and try to use such as a defense if sued.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Leaked Samsung exFat driver relicensed as GPL by dllthomas on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:52PM (#6097288)

> I could run it directly out of a ramdisk

Hard to do when you were shipped a DVD.

[ Parent | on HN ]