back
5 comments
> Um.... so GPL Code can be Patented??

The answer is it depends upon which was first.

If the GPL code existed first, then it "should not" be able to become a patent. I quote "should not" because the reality is that code that is undeserving sometimes does become a patent.

If what is covered by the patent was first, then it is legally patentable.

At this current state is safest to assume that all code is patented.
At the US, yes, and if the person holding the patent is not the same licensing the code, you can still be sued for using it. Just like proprietary software.
Sure. IIRC, even GPLv3 allows it (GPLv3 just requires patent licensing terms iirc).
This was released under GPLv2, so it may not even require that (iirc2).
GPLv2:

> 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, 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.

This means anyone distributing this driver -- including Samsung, since they are not the sole copyright holder -- is on, at best, extremely tenuous footing. I don't expect Samsung has license from Microsoft to sublicense the relevant patents to the world.

of course, you can gpl-license your implementation of a patented algorithm. the copyright license under which software is offered and any patents associated with underlying algorithms are, I think, orthogonal.