legal Digest, Vol 111, Issue 9

[Eric D]

I am confused as to how Chad is violating the GPL.
When Chad shares his kernel, he does in fact share source with the same
people who get the binary.

NOW
if these others are sharing the binary without source (and yes, this is
happening) - this is NOT a violation on Chad, it is a violation on the
people sharing.

Since day one, when Chad himself shared a kernel, he provided TWO links,
one to souce, one to the binary.
YES - I am fully aware that many many many people re-shared the kernel,
some part of the "anthrax crew", while some were not.

Since Chad has complied with ALL the parts of GPL (providing links to tool
chains, binutils, source, and binary in the same message) - there is NO
violation against Chad.
Like I said, I am fully aware others have re-shared Chad's work without
posting source - This in no way puts Chad in violation of the GPL, and NO
chad does not need to honor "3rd party requests for source" since source
was in fact given out with the binary.

It is up to the people "resharing" Chads work to comply with GPL.

Send legal mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of legal digest..."
1. I don't understand why you can't let go (Simon Stapleton)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:29:22 +0200
Subject: I don't understand why you can't let go
I do.
I fully understand why Eric can't just "let go". It's for the same reason
99% of us are on this list - because we care, not just about getting "free
stuff", but about the principles behind the free software movement.
Eric doesn't need to heal. Chad needs to stop violating the GPL.
Simon
_______________________________________________
legal mailing list
https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal

[Eric Appleman]

So. You're just going to ignore the post that started this entire thread?



https://plus.google.com/102371604344319409727/posts/3qLPqFuo728 (log out of
Google to see this)



You need to do 3 things right now.



1. Admit that post had links to binaries in that post and edited it
remove them

2. Admit that post did not contain source or a toolchain

3. Admit you are InvisiSource (very fitting name) and distributing on
his behalf



I can prove #1 very easily:

Loading Image...

http://pastie.org/8999159



#3 is a bit murkier since back in March, Chad distributed (and removed)
binaries without you:

https://plus.google.com/+ChadGoodman/posts/fpjtunxryM3



Are you going to tell me with a straight face that there is a valid offer in
either sets of kernels as opposed to me just downloading it and having no
idea or recourse on finding said offer?



I guess said offer wouldn't apply to me since I'm a "troublemaker", right? I
have to be fully Anthraxed first, right? Are you never going admit I
acquired these kernels through whatever twisted channels you consider
proper?



Even if you (almost exclusively you) and others are acting in defiance of
Chad's wishes for non-distribution, the Anthrax team (again, you are half of
it) has done to stop such distribution. In fact, you seem to welcome all the
exposure these files get. To be honest, you don't seem to do any work at
all. As far as I can tell, you're just a fanboy who does the dirty work of
distributing so Chad can claim he hasn't distributed anything.



I understand how you feel. Your webhosts and domain registrars didn't want
to put up with your antics anymore and now you feel trapped and looking for
anyone that would take you in and close the door behind you. Did you really
think that Infamous Kernels wanted to be dragged into GPL violations too?
Why are you guys still acting so defiant in the face of overwhelming
evidence.



I WILL SAY THIS AGAIN: YOU CANNOT DISTRIBUTE ON CHAD'S BEHALF AND THEN CLAIM
THAT 3RD PARTY REQUESTS ARE NOT VALID!



- Eric



From: legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org
[mailto:legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Eric D
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:56 PM
To: GPL; ***@gmail.com
Subject: Re: legal Digest, Vol 111, Issue 9



I am confused as to how Chad is violating the GPL.

When Chad shares his kernel, he does in fact share source with the same
people who get the binary.



NOW

if these others are sharing the binary without source (and yes, this is
happening) - this is NOT a violation on Chad, it is a violation on the
people sharing.



Since day one, when Chad himself shared a kernel, he provided TWO links, one
to souce, one to the binary.

YES - I am fully aware that many many many people re-shared the kernel, some
part of the "anthrax crew", while some were not.



Since Chad has complied with ALL the parts of GPL (providing links to tool
chains, binutils, source, and binary in the same message) - there is NO
violation against Chad.

Like I said, I am fully aware others have re-shared Chad's work without
posting source - This in no way puts Chad in violation of the GPL, and NO
chad does not need to honor "3rd party requests for source" since source was
in fact given out with the binary.



It is up to the people "resharing" Chads work to comply with GPL.





On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 3:00 AM, <legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org
<mailto:legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org> > wrote:

Send legal mailing list submissions to
***@lists.gpl-violations.org
<mailto:***@lists.gpl-violations.org>

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org
<mailto:legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org>

You can reach the person managing the list at
legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org
<mailto:legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org>

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of legal digest..."

Today's Topics:

1. I don't understand why you can't let go (Simon Stapleton)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Simon Stapleton <***@gmail.com
<mailto:***@gmail.com> >
To: ***@lists.gpl-violations.org <mailto:***@lists.gpl-violations.org>
Cc:
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 07:29:22 +0200
Subject: I don't understand why you can't let go
I do.

I fully understand why Eric can't just "let go". It's for the same reason
99% of us are on this list - because we care, not just about getting "free
stuff", but about the principles behind the free software movement.

Eric doesn't need to heal. Chad needs to stop violating the GPL.

Simon

[Joseph Heenan]

Post by Eric D
I am confused as to how Chad is violating the GPL.
When Chad shares his kernel, he does in fact share source with the
same people who get the binary.

Does Chad not only publish the binary & source to people who agreed not
to distribute it? That in itself is a violation of the GPL, to quote
GPLv2 point 6:

" You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein"

The fact is that the binaries are making it out, and the source isn't,
and people seem to be refusing to share the source. I somehow feel we've
already been through this last time it came up, and it firmly decided
that Chad appeared to be contravening the GPL. I'm not sure there's any
benefit in going around the same loop again, unless Chad has made
changes in what he is doing that require a re-evaluation.

Joseph

[Eric Appleman]

It is beyond bizarre for Eric D to be posting here when he has been the
trigger of each violation.



That is, he is a violator himself. I've already touched upon how he is the
proxy between Chad and the outside world, but Eric is the one who refuses to
uphold the simple GPL responsibility of retransmitting the terms of the
license, especially the retransmission of offer for source. Saying that I
can find every patch on upstream trees is ridiculous and not sufficient. It
also doesn't account for Chad's patches and non-commits.



Why is it so hard for Eric to simply mention where and how to obtain source
when he, YES HE AND NOBODY ELSE, posts Chad's kernels.



Following the GPL isn't hard. Just last week I posted a random compile for a
Chrome extension on a message board along with it's GPLv2 source. It was a
trivial program but I still took the time to make a github repo for it and
share the code.



So Eric D can talk about Chad all he likes, but he is absolutely oblivious
to his own violations. Nobody else is posting Anthrax kernels but him.



The only sources I ever see from Chad are for the stock compiles of
unchanged of Samsung sources. The only reason these sources ever get
released, and to great fanfare I might add, is because they contain none of
Chad's code. Still, I have no way of verifying this since nobody in Anthrax
can be trusted to put forth an honest source. Maybe this is why Chad likes
to claim he shares source.



- Eric



From: legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org
[mailto:legal-***@lists.gpl-violations.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Heenan
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:18 AM
To: ***@lists.gpl-violations.org
Subject: Re: legal Digest, Vol 111, Issue 9



On 13/04/2014 19:55, Eric D wrote:

I am confused as to how Chad is violating the GPL.

When Chad shares his kernel, he does in fact share source with the same
people who get the binary.



Does Chad not only publish the binary & source to people who agreed not to
distribute it? That in itself is a violation of the GPL, to quote GPLv2
point 6:

" You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of
the rights granted herein"

The fact is that the binaries are making it out, and the source isn't, and
people seem to be refusing to share the source. I somehow feel we've already
been through this last time it came up, and it firmly decided that Chad
appeared to be contravening the GPL. I'm not sure there's any benefit in
going around the same loop again, unless Chad has made changes in what he is
doing that require a re-evaluation.

Joseph

[Ralph Corderoy]

Post by Eric D
Since day one, when Chad himself shared a kernel, he provided TWO links,
one to souce, one to the binary.

But does that satisfy 3(a) of the GNU GPL v2?

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code,

I don't see the source is accompanying the binary, merely that it is
also made available separately. To accompany, I'd expect both to be on
the same physical media or wrapped in the same aggregate file format,
e.g. tar or zip.

Cheers, Ralph.

[SonWon]

I would think that would include a website or at least a webpage.

All the best,
~SonWon

Post by Ralph Corderoy

Post by Eric D
Since day one, when Chad himself shared a kernel, he provided TWO links,
one to souce, one to the binary.

But does that satisfy 3(a) of the GNU GPL v2?
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code,
I don't see the source is accompanying the binary, merely that it is
also made available separately. To accompany, I'd expect both to be on
the same physical media or wrapped in the same aggregate file format,
e.g. tar or zip.
Cheers, Ralph.

[Thomas Charron]

Post by Eric D
I am confused as to how Chad is violating the GPL.
When Chad shares his kernel, he does in fact share source with the same
people who get the binary.

Oh come off it. Chad himself made the whole argument that he doesn't
have to provide sources to anyone including his own users with the defence
that they where all part of an 'organization' and due to that, no sources
where required as he was never distributing it.

Unless you're now calling Chad himself a liar.

Post by Eric D
NOW
if these others are sharing the binary without source (and yes, this is
happening) - this is NOT a violation on Chad, it is a violation on the
people sharing.

Step off. People have asked for the sources when this was NOT the case,
and the request was denied and ignored. Furthermore, it turned into public
rants about a super cool 'hole in the GPL'.

[Eric Appleman]

Post by Eric D
I am confused as to how Chad is violating the GPL.
When Chad shares his kernel, he does in fact share source with the
same people who get the binary.
Oh come off it. Chad himself made the whole argument that he
doesn't have to provide sources to anyone including his own users with
the defence that they where all part of an 'organization' and due to
that, no sources where required as he was never distributing it.
Unless you're now calling Chad himself a liar.
NOW
if these others are sharing the binary without source (and yes,
this is happening) - this is NOT a violation on Chad, it is a
violation on the people sharing.
Step off. People have asked for the sources when this was NOT the
case, and the request was denied and ignored. Furthermore, it turned
into public rants about a super cool 'hole in the GPL'.
--
-- Thomas

While digging through these newest binaries, I found this:

..\m919-gpe-kk442-04052014_1826\system\lib\modules\anthrax_gpu_msm.ko

I'm guessing this contains Qualcomm code.

- Eric