There's absolutely nothing of interest to this list here. You are a copyright holder, go enforce your rights and kindly stop spamming this list with mundane and easily addressable violations. On Jul 10, 2013 8:09 AM, "Eric D" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had Posted information about another User of XDA who violated the GPL, > and somehow it appears to be discarded and I was told to take it up with > XDA in not so many words. > > The issue is not with XDA. SebastianFM is distributing a kernel on a > public website with no access control. This kernel has no source, and this > user has a pattern of posting kernels with no source. Yes, it is another > matter that XDA has permitted this in the past, but it is still a violation > opf the GPL, and therefore should be discussed here. > > In the past SebastianFM has released kernels that he called "leaks" The > binaries were posted by SebastianFM himself. He claims there is no source > as the kernels were leaks, and he had to "hex edit" the binary. With these > "hex edits" he was able to not just change, but add cpu clock steps, fix > touch screen issues related to multi touch, change L2 Cache and FSB clocks, > and change the uname string so the kernel appears to be compiled by > "SebastianFM" for various android devices. Basically the same things most > developers do by modifying source and re-compiling. > > > I feel this is relevant to discuss here, as it is in fact a violation of > the GPL. (as well as a violation of XDA's policy, as posted by Jeremy Meiss > on this very mailing list.) > > The kernel is posted here => http://forum.xda-developers. > com/showthread.php?t=2349756 > > > Jeremy Meiss was allowed to post here on this list about XDA's policies > and what not, and no one objected. Yet, when I post that someone is infact > violating the GPL, be it faux123 of SebastianFM, or MikeC84 - the focus > always gets moved back to Chad. > > > >
