[effn]

No. The authors of GPL-licensed code has no say in how other people license their code they don't own the copyright on.

Derivatives of GPL-licensed code is either: 1. GPL-licensed 2. Illegal

If it's not explicitly 1 by the license on the derived work, it becomes 2. It is not automatically "forced" into category 1.

[andreasvc]

By illegal you mean illegal to distribute. If Samsung used this code internally and it was leaked accidentally, they are not in violation of the GPL.

[dmytrish]

If Samsung ships binaries produced from this code to customers and this code is derivative from GPL code, they _are_ in violation of the GPL.

[effn]

Yes, of course.

[crististm]

This is not such a gray area as you think. Search for the readline license and what that meant to clisp.

Hint: derivative work of a GPL code is GPL (although that was slightly different for clisp).

You are free not have GPL stamp on your code as long as you keep it to yourself. If you distribute it to a third party you are automatically bound by GPL.

[Dylan16807]

There is no gray area. Derivative works are GPL or illegal. But nothing physically forces people from breaking the law. You cannot GPL a piece of code against the author's will.

[icebraining]

Nitpick: against the copyright holder's will. They're often not the same as the author (e.g., work for hire).