Chad Goodman and Anthrax kernels

[James Acheson]

I think it's safe to say that a court of law is the only entity that can
resolve the definitions of private organization and private distribution,
so I do not want to address that with this letter. I also ask that any
replies to this letter refrain from restarting those arguments.

Instead I'd like to address the basis of the supposed violation

Chad Goodman has been accused of violating GPL by denying source to
kernels. Back in February, he was accused of denying source for an aosp
kernel. This kernel was not publicly distributed at all. A very few hand
picked members were given a link in private to access this kernel. None of
this members, to this day, have requested source. Later a member of this
list located the kernel in a Dropbox account and reposted the link. This
account does not belong to Chad Goodman. Only after that did Dan Pasanen or
Eric Appleman (I can't remember which off hand) request source. Obviously,
per gpl, Chad Goodman is not required to release source to a third party.
Dan and Eric only had rights to request source from the owner of the
Dropbox account, therefore there was no violation

Eric Appleman has also claimed that Chad is in violation for the Touchwiz
kernels currently being released. Note, I admit I may have missed it, but I
have yet to see him show proof of him requesting source for these Touchwiz
kernels and I have at no point seen any proof showing Chad denying a
request for source. Therefore no gpl violation

Also I would like to remind everyone that Chad Goodman does offer source to
those who request, provided that they are authorized to download anthrax
kernels on anthrax forums. Simply becoming a member does guarantee access
to download of anthrax kernels.

When all this began back in February, source was available upon request to
those authorized to download, although I admit it wasn't as easy to locate
how to obtain source, but nevertheless it was available. Since February,
Chad Goodman has made this information much easier to locate on Anthrax
forums.

No matter your thoughts on the definitions of private organization or
private distribution... The claims of GPL violation are still based upon
the request for source and the claim that it was denied. However, since the
only request that has been shown was for a kernel that the requester
obtained thru a third party, there is no gpl violation.

Now if those making the claims of violation such as Eric Appleman and Dan
Pasanen would like to name a specific kernel, show proof that they
downloaded the kernel personally, show a letter requesting source for that
specific kernel and show proof that they were denied source, then I feel
that the discussion on alleged violations could take place.

Otherwise, there doesn't seem to be any violations, since Chad does offer
source to those authorized to download his Anthrax kernels

Thank you for your time and I apologize for the link of this email

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi James,

Post by James Acheson
Chad Goodman has been accused of violating GPL by denying source to
kernels. Back in February, he was accused of denying source for an
aosp kernel. This kernel was not publicly distributed at all. A very
few hand picked members were given a link in private to access this
kernel. None of this members, to this day, have requested source.

That's irrelevant. When Chad distributed it to them, did he provide the
source at the same time, 3(a), accompany it with a written offer to
provide the source, 3(b), or pass on the written offer he received with
the binary, 3(c)? If none of these then it's a violation of the GNU GPL
v2. Presumably he didn't do the first, else you wouldn't point out the
lack of source requests. The last is unlikely since it only applies if
he was passing on a binary he also received as a binary. So that leaves
3(b); accompanying the binary with a written offer of the source that
satisfies 3(b).

Post by James Acheson
Later a member of this list located the kernel in a Dropbox account
and reposted the link. This account does not belong to Chad Goodman.
Only after that did Dan Pasanen or Eric Appleman (I can't remember
which off hand) request source. Obviously, per gpl, Chad Goodman is
not required to release source to a third party.

Well, actually, he is. If he distributed it under 3(b) with a written
offer to a select few then he must "give any third party" the source
thereafter. Please read http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html as
your argument suggests a lack of familiarity with it and more
regurgitating a position you've heard another state.

Post by James Acheson
Dan and Eric only had rights to request source from the owner of the
Dropbox account, therefore there was no violation

Incorrect as if we assume Chad didn't violate the GPL but provided a
3(b) written offer then this Dropbox binary would be accompanied by that
written offer, passed hand-to-hand under 3(c), and it would be to Chad
that a recipient of the offer returns.

Post by James Acheson
Also I would like to remind everyone that Chad Goodman does offer
source to those who request, provided that they are authorized to
download anthrax kernels on anthrax forums.

That doesn't meet the GNU GPL v2. Chad is in violation if the
distributed binary he has created from GNU GPL v2'd source is not
accompanied by either his source or a written offer.

Post by James Acheson
When all this began back in February, source was available upon
request to those authorized to download, although I admit it wasn't as
easy to locate how to obtain source, but nevertheless it was
available.

This suggests no written offer and Chad was in violation.

Post by James Acheson
Since February, Chad Goodman has made this information much easier to
locate on Anthrax forums.

Insufficient. The binary must be accompanied by either the source or
the written offer. Hopefully this is clear by now.

Post by James Acheson
No matter your thoughts on the definitions of private organization or
private distribution... The claims of GPL violation are still based
upon the request for source and the claim that it was denied. However,
since the only request that has been shown was for a kernel that the
requester obtained thru a third party, there is no gpl violation.

My above points show you're very misguided and the above is again wrong.

Cheers, Ralph.

[Henrik Nordström]

Post by Ralph Corderoy
Insufficient. The binary must be accompanied by either the source or
the written offer. Hopefully this is clear by now.

If the binary and written offer is found at the same designated location
then it's sufficient for me to count as "accompanied".

Now I am not a member of said forums so I can't comment on what the
access to binaries and written offer look like there.

In my opinion the following condiitons need to be met for this to be
acceptable:

1. the written offer must be easy to locate to those who can download
the binary, likely even mentioned just next to any download links etc.
You should not need to search for it or

2. Redistribution of the downloaded binaries or written offer MUST NOT
be restricted. Anyone who is authorized to download binaries is per the
license also allowed to redistribute the same binaries together with a
copy of the written offer.

3. Access to source MUST be provided to anyone who is in possession of a
copy of the written offer. Not only those who are authorized to download
binaries.

4. You must be able to provide access to any specific binary. Not just
some random versions.

Regards
Henrik

[Eric Appleman]

Post by James Acheson
Now if those making the claims of violation such as Eric Appleman and
Dan Pasanen would like to name a specific kernel, show proof that they
downloaded the kernel personally, show a letter requesting source for
that specific kernel and show proof that they were denied source, then
I feel that the discussion on alleged violations could take place.

I'd really like to name specific kernels by filename, but I only
remember the PLL kernels and other Sprint test releases after Chad
resumed the binaries that he promised to stop. Apparently he never
intended to stop, only clean house.

However, I cannot give filenames at this time since I botched a
repartitioning of my hard drive a few weeks ago and lost my Ubuntu /home
partition. If this sounds incredulous and want proof, here was my pubic
partition plan: http://pastebin.com/8jj0ivdk
As I was writing my master's project at the time, I was unable to act
upon the plan until Mid-April. At any rate, I no longer have the files.
I lost everything on that partition that I did not take the time to
backup or sync with the cloud.

Chad and Eric need to come clean about which files I download using my
Starks and Caleb accounts. Both accounts were mine but Eric seems to
think that Rob Cayley is a real person, hence the stolen account
accusations. Until then, they know which files I have/had and that my
source requests for them are blanket and valid.

- Eric Appleman

[James Acheson]

In regards to my last email, I would ask that nobody else replies to that
email. Shortly after sending that email, I discovered a couple typos and
missing words that actually contribute to several inaccuracies to the
statements I was attempting to make.

I then requested that the email NOT be approved in an attempt to stop any
derailing of the legitimate discussions on this list.

Unfortunately my email sent 2 days ago regarding the prevention of this
email was missed or not seen yet

Obviously I do not blame the moderators, add this was obviously my error
for not properly proofreading my email before it was submitted

I apologize for these grammatical errors which lead to misleading
statements regarding the situation and I am currently awaiting the removal
of the incorrect email before posting the corrected version.

To those of you who have already replied to that email, I feel it's best
not to address your responses at this time due to some of the answers being
responses to certain statements affected by my lack of proofreading. Upon
submission of the corrected version of the email, please feel free to
respond again, so the discussion may continue.

Again, I'm sorry for the confusion and my mistakes resulting in misleading
information

I don't know if a moderator sees the emails sent to
legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org but if not then please accept this as
my 2nd request to remove the email and 3rd request in total if including
the original request to not submit the email

Thank You

[Ralph Corderoy]

Post by James Acheson
I then requested that the email NOT be approved in an attempt to stop any
derailing of the legitimate discussions on this list.
Unfortunately my email sent 2 days ago regarding the prevention of this
email was missed or not seen yet

I've explained to James off-list that the email headers show his `please
reject, I'll send an improvement' email exited his local email system
some 22 hours *before* the email to be rejected, though written minutes
afterwards. Add on overnight delays for sleep before the moderation
queue is read and it was thought another moderator had rejected the
earlier version, as requested, and this was the new, improved one so it
was approved.

Post by James Acheson
I don't know if a moderator sees the emails sent to
this as my 2nd request to remove the email

Hi James. Removing isn't really practical. This isn't a centralised
forum. The email is copied and spread widely, including to various
public points of archive. Personally, I think it's sufficient that
threaded to it will be your `sent in error' declaration.

Cheers, Ralph.