MikeC84 of XDA refused to provide source to a kernel is being distributing to the public.

[Eric D]

In regards to Jeremy's statement below in regards to the GPL, and how XDA
enforces the GPL, I would like to provide some more facts in regards to
this.

At the link here ->
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2349756
XDA user SebastianFM has a ROM and KERNEL package. This kernel is modified
from stock.
At the time of this email - this posting was
*Last edited by SebastianFM; 6th July 2013 at 02:58 PM. *
And created on 4th July 2013, 12:24 AM

Today is July 8th, and there is still no source for the kernel.
SebastianFM clearly states in his post that "
*Kernel
* I'll upload source code soon
"

SebastianFM has a history for not uploading source, and people in the past
have been banned for "wasting a moderators time" for reporting him for no
source.
This post I linked above was posted 2 days ago, and there is no source, and
the moderator who responded to the post said there is a grace period.

Sr. XDA Moderator Broncogr also in the past stated "SebastianFM gets a
grace period for GPL compliance because he has done so much for the
community"

Yes, with some developers, XDA will permaban a developer within 1 hour if
no source is provided, while other developers get a grace period of 10
days, and sometimes months, sometimes 5 minutes.. It all depends on your
name or team association.

Point of this email is that XDA is selective on who they enforce GPL on,
and how they enforce it. Faux123 lost his "status" of "RD" for repeated
GPL violations, but he is allowed to still post his kernels. Sebastian is
allowed to get grace periods, showp1984 is exempt from providing a
defconfig file (per broncogr).

...and.....
MikeC84 clearly responded to a request for source with "with I post a link,
you can have it" You would have to be blind to realize that at the time of
the request, he had no intent of providing source code. He only covered
his tracks after his compliance issues were discussed here.





-----------------------------
As I am not familiar on ChadGoodman's knowledge of, or possession of, a
license to distribute exFAT I will not comment.

I am a member of the staff at XDA-Developers and as such have chosen to
reply to this particular discussion, though I have followed all of the
discussions involving faux123, chadgoodman, etc. As far as I am aware,
MikeC84 is in compliance with GPLv2. His kernel source, now found on
bitbucket (http://goo.gl/ZTmRe), was moved from github (http://goo.gl/q7U1u),
is accurate, complete and developed in the open.

We at XDA take the spirit of the GPLv2 another step and require more
transparency on all kernels posted on our forum than the GPLv2 requires -
you can see our global, public statement at XDA-Developers and the
GPL<http://www.xda-developers.com/android/xda-developers-and-the-gpl/>.
We are unable to police every single post on XDA (40 million posts as of
right now) from our over 5.1 million members - however we have a nice
system whereby users can report issues and our moderator team will
investigate. If after our investigation we find violations of our Forum
Rules or associated copyright law, we will take appropriate action. We take
an impartial stance, and will act in a decisive manner, when we come in
contact with *anyone* who violates the GPLv2 as we take it very seriously.

With that being said we, as a conduit, do not deal with vexatious
complaints. Someone complaining to us about UserX's purported violations of
some rule, or blatant trolling or orchestrations of mass uprisings or "dev
wars" will be taken at face value and seen for what they are.

You may contact me at any time with regards to GPLv2 issues at XDA as I am
the OEM Relations Manager, Senior Moderator, and on the Developer
Committee.


----
Jeremy Meiss
OEM Relations, Developer Committee, Senior Moderator
XDA-Developers <http://www.xda-developers.com/>

[Ryan Orr]

In regards to Jeremy's statement below in regards to the GPL, and how XDA enforces the GPL, I would like to provide some more facts in regards to this.
At the link here -> http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2349756
XDA user SebastianFM has a ROM and KERNEL package. This kernel is modified from stock.
At the time of this email - this posting was
Last edited by SebastianFM; 6th July 2013 at 02:58 PM.
And created on 4th July 2013, 12:24 AM
Today is July 8th, and there is still no source for the kernel. SebastianFM clearly states in his post that "
Kernel
I'll upload source code soon
"
SebastianFM has a history for not uploading source, and people in the past have been banned for "wasting a moderators time" for reporting him for no source.
This post I linked above was posted 2 days ago, and there is no source, and the moderator who responded to the post said there is a grace period.
Sr. XDA Moderator Broncogr also in the past stated "SebastianFM gets a grace period for GPL compliance because he has done so much for the community"
Yes, with some developers, XDA will permaban a developer within 1 hour if no source is provided, while other developers get a grace period of 10 days, and sometimes months, sometimes 5 minutes.. It all depends on your name or team association.
Point of this email is that XDA is selective on who they enforce GPL on, and how they enforce it. Faux123 lost his "status" of "RD" for repeated GPL violations, but he is allowed to still post his kernels. Sebastian is allowed to get grace periods, showp1984 is exempt from providing a defconfig file (per broncogr).
...and.....
MikeC84 clearly responded to a request for source with "with I post a link, you can have it" You would have to be blind to realize that at the time of the request, he had no intent of providing source code. He only covered his tracks after his compliance issues were discussed here.

This is not the XDA enforcement list. If you have issues with how XDA handles enforcement of their policies, please take it up with them off the list. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this list exists to provide you with a forum to insist upon enforcement of the GPL. And before you claim "Chad Goodman witch hunt", the issue with Chad that was so interesting as to spur so much discussion on this list was the reliance on the GPL FAQ that used the undefined term "organization".

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Mon, 8 Jul 2013 11:03:46 -0400, Ryan wrote in message

Post by Ryan Orr
This is not the XDA enforcement list. If you have issues with how
XDA handles enforcement of their policies, please take it up with
them

...on _their_ forums, and off this list.

Post by Ryan Orr
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that
this list exists to provide you with a forum to insist upon
enforcement of the GPL. And before you claim "Chad Goodman witch
hunt", the issue with Chad that was so interesting as to spur so much
discussion on this list was the reliance on the GPL FAQ that used the
undefined term "organization".

[Oliver Schinagl]

Post by Eric D
In regards to Jeremy's statement below in regards to the GPL, and how
XDA enforces the GPL, I would like to provide some more facts in regards
to this.

Their forums, their list, complain over there.

Post by Eric D
showp1984 is exempt from providing a
defconfig file (per broncogr).

And before we spew falsities around, haven't we allready agreed, that if
/proc/config.gz is enabled in the kernel, you can extract it from it
(running kernel or from the file itself) and thus the config file is
distributed. Awkward and less user friendly, but far far from a
violation? Just a reminder in case you had forgotten.

Post by Eric D
...and.....
MikeC84 clearly responded to a request for source with "with I post a
link, you can have it" You would have to be blind to realize that at
the time of the request, he had no intent of providing source code. He
only covered his tracks after his compliance issues were discussed here.

And hopefully he learned his lesson.


Oliver