On 7/9/2013 8:48 AM, Eric D wrote:
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.
The discussion keeps coming back to Chad since you and him have an
integrity problem.
Within hours of my post about how Chad's exfat **does not** use rxrz's
kernel module and **does not** use FUSE (filesystem in userspace), Chad
made the outrageous claim on his Google+ that I accused him of
stealing/kanging rxrz's work and then you backed him up by not only
using my full name, you treated it like an exclusive scoop and didn't
even link to what I wrote [1].
I can only imagine you made such a dishonest statement as part of an
effort to smear me and fire up Chad's followers. This spin and selective
editing needs to stop if you want this list to take you seriously. I
have no idea if Chad even reads this list or depends on others to
selectively edit and feed him information, it's just wrong.
For the record, the latest CyanogenMod nightly [2] includes open-source
exfat support via FUSE in the rom (where it belongs) and not illegally
via the kernelspace as Chad appears to do. Feel free to correct me and
explain exactly how Chad implements exfat via a kernel without
Samsung/Microsoft modules if I've made an inaccurate statement.
[1] https://plus.google.com/105084384299106728552/posts/frHAQNGwKqd
<https://plus.google.com/105084384299106728552/posts/frHAQNGwKqd>
[2]
https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_external_fuse/commit/f36e7c5806dbe8d96e20a4632b805d814ac14b01
<https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_external_fuse/commit/f36e7c5806dbe8d96e20a4632b805d814ac14b01>
On 7/8/2013 5:50 AM, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
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.
IMO if I upload binaries to my paid-for space on a hosting server and
they aren't available to others, that root can access them does not mean
I've made a "distribution".
Cheers, Ralph.
The problem is that the binaries are available to others and these
others brag incessantly about it across the Android modding landscape.
The top echelon of these others are Chad's core set of followers who
harass git repos and Google+ with specious arguments against the GPL and
outright flaming. This gives rise to the whole "even if you can't access
it, it still exists mentality" of the site's members who honestly have
no idea how all of the nefarious things are being done to put the
licensed content from Samsung, HTC, and Microsoft on their phones.
Chad's site is a walled garden. He now only lets you in after hooking
into your Facebook account (yes, the site actually does this) and/or
receiving sponsorship from multiple members. He's gone out of his way to
make sure the contents of his site and forum are copy-protected and not
indexed by search engines. This still doesn't change the fact that Chad
has been loose about what constitutes file access on his site and how
readily he used to hand out access to many areas of his site that had
files being posted or uploaded.
You set up an account, made helpful posts for a few days, got access,
and downloaded a kernel from his Chit Chat threads? "No you didn't. You
hacked somebody's account."
You set up an account, made helpful posts for a few months, got advanced
access, and downloaded a kernel from the "Files" section? "No you
didn't. You never had user permission access."
You downloaded a kernel from before Chad went closed-source? "No you
didn't. I won't provide source. Find a similar source tree."
Let me remind everyone of Richard Stallman's view on whether or not
distribution is taking place. Hint: The site still fails the
company-employee test for internal distribution.
"His web site may be operated by a private organization, but that does
not give it any special privileges under the GPL. The people who visit
the web site are not his employees. The GPL does not make any exceptions
for beta test." - RMS on April 15th
- Eric Appleman
