Hi Eric (Dye), > I had Posted information about another User of XDA who violated the > GPL, and somehow it appears to be discarded
I don't think anything was discarded. You may have emails rejected but they come back explicitly from Mailman. > 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. [...] it > is still a violation opf the GPL, and therefore should be discussed > here. A discussion needs a point to discuss. You're stating what you see as fact and Sebastian isn't here disagreeing. No one else on the list seems keen to investigate personally and want to ask more questions. Neither are you asking questions. Repeatedly stating the same or similar claims is not a discussion. And it is not this list's purpose. Typical list content pre-Chad was someone pointing at a product where no source was available and discussion ensuing about where it might be, whether that manufacturer had a good track record, and whether someone here had a contact who could help. That's discussion. Indeed, given your connection with Chad and that you weren't here pre-Chad pointing out these violations, your motive could be seen as trying to draw attention away from Chad by showing how there are many more blatant violations than Chad's not-a-distribution attempt at a loophole. What you repeatedly fail to grasp is the list's interest in Chad was (since we're now all sick of the sight of him) the theoretical point of his not-a-distribution attempt. It could have come up just as a "what if?" and we'd still have been interested. We're not anti-Chad but against his transparent attempt to subvert the licence he's benefitting from. > 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. It would be a point to discuss if you were turning up saying "Here's two kernels, one of which has all these claimed improvements over the other. Author claims to have hex-edited and not have the source. Is this plausible?" But to just state a violation is a one-off event if it interests no one else. > 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. That's probably because you only seem to be doing this because of Chad's earlier actions, as I suggested above. I tried to approach Chad, without the bias and noise of some on this list, to ask a simple question to clarify his position. https://plus.google.com/u/0/105084384299106728552/posts/3Vu4JQETSM3 The long post can be skipped since I quoted the relevant part in my 30th May comment: Chad wrote: > Any kernels I release to the public in the future will also have > full current and correct source code. Any "public" kernel > released by me to the general public will have information in > /sbin/readme on how to acquire source I find those two sentences a bit contradictory; perhaps you can clarify. Are you accompanying the public kernels you distribute with the source code, following 3(a) of GNU GPL v2, or a written offer of the source code, 3(b)? A simple question needing only a brief answer to clear up his intent. His complete reply: Source for my public kernels will be available to users who download the kernel via HTTP link to a public repo on my own server - that is all that needs to be said. Perhaps he doesn't understand the GNU GPL v2 and its requirements upon him so is foxed by my question and cannot answer. I find this unlikely given his attempts to route around the GPL. So more likely is he does not want to answer clearly because he is doing neither 3(b) or 3(c) and so obfuscates. This is shoddy behaviour and does nothing to improve one's impression of him. Cheers, Ralph.
