Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 30 Dec 2019 11:59:09 -0800
From:      Russell Haley <russ.haley@gmail.com>
To:        "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Re: exFAT is no longer encumbered
Message-ID:  <CABx9NuQvp5-J37ZmCmh6cNz4V0oXnV5xyq=SuXunbT0FJVJyKQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR04MB5021821432ABCF8D5F1BA48C80270@SN6PR04MB5021.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
References:  <1921981.4WAli8B44Z@no.place.like.home> <20191230013752.GA74518@neutralgood.org> <CAP7rwcg=PExuCP0S=FykdkcW4-cnEa35mQfSfzVC8Ku8JmjKFg@mail.gmail.com> <SN6PR04MB5021821432ABCF8D5F1BA48C80270@SN6PR04MB5021.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 3:41 AM Carmel NY <carmel_ny@outlook.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 18:51:41 -0700, Adam Weinberger stated:
> >On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 6:38 PM Kevin P. Neal <kpn@neutralgood.org>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 01:01:52AM -0600, Greg Rivers wrote:
> >> > As of last August, Microsoft have relaxed the patent restrictions
> >> > on exFAT[1].
> >> >
> >> > Can the Makefile LICENSE_PERMS_MSPAT restrictions be removed from
> >> > sysutils/fusefs-exfat? Might exFAT make it into the FreeBSD base
> >> > system (like msdosfs) one day?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > [1]
> >> > <
> https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/opensource/2019/08/28/exfat-linux-kernel/
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm not sure that counts as a license. IANAL, but I'd like to see an
> >> explicit granting of a license to anyone at no cost, and the license
> >> needs to be transferable.
> >>
> >> The way Berkeley eliminated the advertising clause was good. Simply
> >> saying "Microsoft is supporting the addition of" doesn't really say
> >> anything. It's a statement of corporate direction and nothing else.
> >
> >Expanding on what Kevin said,
> >
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/intellectualproperty/mtl/exfat-licensing.aspx
> >suggests that (a) exFAT is still patented and restricted as before,
> >and (b) GPLv2 licensing was granted only for the Linux kernel module
> >that they submitted.
> >
> >The BSD License grants the ability to use BSD-licensed code in
> >commercial products, so I'm not sure that Microsoft would want to
> >relax their licensing for us. As Kevin said, IANAL.
> >
> ># Adam
>
> I imagine that someone could actually inquire. It would cost nothing
> and end this FUD that is surrounding this subject.
>
>         http://aka.ms/celaiplicensing
>
On my phone the site displays a "Contoso, Ltd." title (That's Microsoft's
pretend company for all it's examples). The IP Address resolves to a
seemingly non-Microsoft server: waws-prod-bay-059.cloudapp.net
[23.99.91.55]. To boot, there is no corporate branding or other links back
to the Microsoft site. Forgive me, but it seems like a terrible idea to
submit information to that site.

>
> --
> Carmel
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABx9NuQvp5-J37ZmCmh6cNz4V0oXnV5xyq=SuXunbT0FJVJyKQ>