MikeC84 of XDA refused to provide source to a kernel is is distributing to the public.
erappleman at gmail.com
Sat Jul 6 20:05:27 CEST 2013
On 7/6/2013 9:35 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>> MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download,
> It would be handy in cases like this to state the URL and the SHA1 or
> similar digest of the download to put it on the public record. Others
> on the list can then trivially repeat your action.
> His latest reply at that URL includes "The latest version of my kernel
> was compiled from my open bitbucket repo therefore there is no
> violation". Does this mean source is provided after all, or is it that
> he has replaced the earlier kernel with a later one and you're after the
> source of the earlier one? (One good reason for getting the above
> recorded at the time.)
> I do think your general attitude, e.g. "thanks for playing", serves only
> to get others' backs up. The end aim is to widen the spread of source
> code, not to annoy those that transgress when they could be talked
> around nicely, with a bit of cajoling, into complying for the benefit of
> Cheers, Ralph.
Eric Dye is misrepresenting the situation. Here's how he, Chad, and his
friends REALLY feel about Mike, the GPL, this list, and its members,
especially Cole who has very been insightful.
Screenshot in case everything disappears or is made private, which it
probably will: http://i.imgur.com/cf3ev6b.jpg
He clearly has no interest in being an honest broker for whatever
transgressions may have happened with Mike and Faux.
This is just a smokescreen for Chad apparently losing his website's
domain and suddenly wanting to sue anyone that uses his code. Eric and
Chad just want the blessing of this list to continue acting defiant and
contrary to the spirit of the GPL.
Why should we help the biggest GPL violators in years go after minor GPL
violators who could've been calmly coerced into speedy compliance by
more respectable individuals? Mike made a mistake and then he gets
thrashed for it. That's not how things are supposed to be.
There wouldn't be any problem if Chad simply published patches in a
standard manner with verifiable timestamps. Except he insists on never
committing anything to public repos or upstream. Instead he expects
people to read long-winded articles, believe doctorable screenshots, or
honor what few patches that get published by proxy and rarely have his
name on them. There's also the tired rhetoric of "this was in my binary
months before the source appeared in any tree" and then accuses people
of kanging a source that he never made available in the first place.
Chad can brag all he wants about being the only non-stock kernel with
exFAT, but he always conveniently leaves out the fact that the kernel
contains proprietary licensed Microsoft modules that cannot be legally
distributed. He's not using the open-source exFAT through FUSE or the
literally brand new open-source out-of-tree kernel module by rxrz.
I refuse to deal with people who shamelessly promote warez kernels on
sites that only allow GPL-compliant binaries, convince their followers
to do the same, yet hide the binaries and the
yet-to-be-seen-yet-on-a-public-server source code in unregulated
portions of the internet where GPL enforcement can't reach.
This whole thread was created out of spite and harassment.
- Eric Appleman
More information about the legal