Lapsus$ Hacks Samsung
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
Does anybody knows about this case? I don't know the details, but it seems a lot of source code used on galaxy phones has been leak, specifically their boot loader.
Could this some how help the replicant project? Thank you.
It can only help Replicant if it's free software. That means the copyright holder (Samsung in this case) deliberately going out and releasing it themselves under an appropriate license. Leaks don't help because what's missing from that is the stamp of approval from Samsung to make it legal. Without that it's just a big hot nonfree mess to avoid.
Thanks a lot jxself. I have a few questions:
Does Replicant has the approval of Samsung for their supported devices? I mean I understand that Replicant did not stole or copied the source code out of samsung and used it as is. I'm guessing Replicants developers used reverse engineering and make their own code.
I wasn't suggesting that replicant developers could used the leak code as is, but wouldn't it be a lot easier to reverse engineer samsung galaxy devices if the source code is known? I mean, couldn't they make their own code out of understanding what the leak code does to work?
Sorry for my ignorance. I really do not know.
"Wouldn't it be a lot easier to reverse engineer samsung galaxy devices if the source code is known? I mean, couldn't they make their own code out of understanding what the leak code does to work?"
Since they'll both see the code and work on implementing their own code, there is the potential to copy code, even unintentionally just from remembering how something worked when reading the code. That still runs afoul of Samsung copyright just as well as willfully copying. This is why clean room reverse engineering is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall#Reverse_engineering
Doing a complete clean room process doesn't depend on source code. So ultimately no - The source code release doesn't really make things easier. It does make legal problems easier though. Now, if the Replicant project accepts contributions from someone will it be from someone that looked at the leaked source code and is contributing code that was copied, either intentionally or not?
Thanks a lot jxself again. I have said it a lot during all this years, but you and many users in the trisquel forum are real heroes to me. Thanks a lot to help me clarify this to me.
So as I theorized in my last post, more than helping, this leak harms Replicant :(
At least I'm glad to know now that leaks do not help free software, and there is no reason to feel happy (necessarily) when they happen.
While I was asking my self this question I thought that trying to make your own code base on a leak one wouldn't be so right. I mean, what would stop some one to take a free software project, make some changes to it (enough to pass it as their own) and make it proprietary? That wouldn't be right, and the original developer should be help to take those people to court.
I'm sure samsung has a lot of lawyers in their payroll. One thing that I believe might have protected Replicant from being sued is that no source code leak had happened before, so there was no way they could claim that their original source code was used. But now that it has been, it would probably be very easy for samsung lawyers to claim their leak code was used. So this leak more than helping is actually harming replicant. Am I right?
Of course, I do not endorse or suggest people to buy anything from samsung. For what I have read in the forum, Librem and pinephone doesn't seem to be the best solutions either. I have been really considered doing what Richard Stallman has told us from day one, not use a cellphone at all. I have a supported Replicant phone right now.
I do think that there is a value in trying to make this devices run with free software, even if I ever stop using a phone at all.
I made a mistake and didn't make the above replied message part of jxself reply. Please look at jxself reply to follow the conversation.
Lastly I will like to say that, more than anything, what has protected Replicant developers against a Samsung's law suit, it's their integrity. They didn't have any code when they did their reverse engineering. And that same integrity will continue to protect them.
But as stated by jxself already, that will be only true if they can make sure all the developers they accept have the same high integrity.
Bottom line, knowing what I know now, this news make me sad now instead of happy. But I do believe it is not the end of the world. Replicant can still thrive even with this news.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires