As I am not familiar on ChadGoodman's knowledge of, or possession of, a license to distribute exFAT I will not comment.
I am a member of the staff at XDA-Developers and as such have chosen to reply to this particular discussion, though I have followed all of the discussions involving faux123, chadgoodman, etc. As far as I am aware, MikeC84 is in compliance with GPLv2. His kernel source, now found on bitbucket (http://goo.gl/ZTmRe), was moved from github (http://goo.gl/q7U1u), is accurate, complete and developed in the open. We at XDA take the spirit of the GPLv2 another step and require more transparency on all kernels posted on our forum than the GPLv2 requires - you can see our global, public statement at XDA-Developers and the GPL<http://www.xda-developers.com/android/xda-developers-and-the-gpl/>. We are unable to police every single post on XDA (40 million posts as of right now) from our over 5.1 million members - however we have a nice system whereby users can report issues and our moderator team will investigate. If after our investigation we find violations of our Forum Rules or associated copyright law, we will take appropriate action. We take an impartial stance, and will act in a decisive manner, when we come in contact with *anyone* who violates the GPLv2 as we take it very seriously. With that being said we, as a conduit, do not deal with vexatious complaints. Someone complaining to us about UserX's purported violations of some rule, or blatant trolling or orchestrations of mass uprisings or "dev wars" will be taken at face value and seen for what they are. You may contact me at any time with regards to GPLv2 issues at XDA as I am the OEM Relations Manager, Senior Moderator, and on the Developer Committee. ---- Jeremy Meiss OEM Relations, Developer Committee, Senior Moderator XDA-Developers <http://www.xda-developers.com> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Arnt Karlsen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:05:27 -0400, Eric wrote in message > <[email protected]>: > > > 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. > > ..maybe he has a license from Microsoft? ;o) > Seriously, what other options are there? > > ..exFAT "is proprietary and patent-pending" according to both > Microsoft and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT , AFAIR exFAT > was designed to specifically suppress asd prevent GPL etc open > source development and business on Microsoft-compatible file > systems. > > > 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 > > ..it looks more like Microsoft style litigation tactics. > > -- > ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen > ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... > Scenarios always come in sets of three: > best case, worst case, and just in case. > >
