I think it's safe to say that most XDA kernels are distributed without their accompanying source. In addition, there was a request a month or two ago about forming a pool of Linux Kernel copyright holders to speed up enforcement.
It is clear Chad Goodman and Eric D, among many other XDA developers are in violation. For people arguing /for/ Chad, I'm pretty sure, no - am /completely/ sure that if you upload your binaries to a /publicly/ accessible place, that constitutes as distribution. Even if the site requires a password to access the files, I doubt your files are encrypted. In that case, the site owners can access the binaries if they wanted to. The only site I've seen that actually /encrypts/ your data is Mega. I'm not sure about Google Drive. I'm /pretty/ sure BitBucket doesn't. I say we bring the discussions to an end. Doing so will allow us to actually /be able/ to create a pool of copyright holders. The constant back and forth here about what constitutes distribution is really getting on my nerves. I hope it can just stop. Now as for the pool, I for one, am /not/ a copyright holder on the Linux Kernel. The only copyrights on GPL (or compatible) code I own is my own stuff at SourceForge [<http://sourceforge.net/projects/colejohnson66.u>] and "catalog.c" in libxml2 [<https://mail.gnome.org/archives/commits-list/2013-March/msg19654.html>]. That's it. So I can't do anything about Chad and his minions, but I hope the actual copyright holders on this list can. ---- Cole Johnson -- E-mail: [email protected] -- Twitter: @5urd Hexware, LLC -- Twitter: @HexwareLLC
