SebastianFM on XDA violates the GPL (again)

[Eric D]

I had Posted information about another User of XDA who violated the GPL,
and somehow it appears to be discarded and I was told to take it up with
XDA in not so many words.

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. Yes, it is another
matter that XDA has permitted this in the past, but it is still a violation
opf the GPL, and therefore should be discussed here.

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. (as well as a violation of XDA's policy, as posted by Jeremy Meiss
on this very mailing list.)

The kernel is posted here => http://forum.xda-developers.
com/showthread.php?t=2349756


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.

[Ryan Orr]

There's absolutely nothing of interest to this list here. You are a
copyright holder, go enforce your rights and kindly stop spamming this list
with mundane and easily addressable violations.

Post by Eric D
I had Posted information about another User of XDA who violated the GPL,
and somehow it appears to be discarded and I was told to take it up with
XDA in not so many words.
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. Yes, it is another
matter that XDA has permitted this in the past, but it is still a violation
opf the GPL, and therefore should be discussed here.
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. (as well as a violation of XDA's policy, as posted by Jeremy Meiss
on this very mailing list.)
The kernel is posted here => http://forum.xda-developers.
com/showthread.php?t=2349756
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.

[Eric Appleman]

Post by Eric D
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>

Post by Eric D

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

[Eric Appleman]

Quick correction regarding CyanogenMod's exfat support. I posted the
wrong link and I want to show good faith in allowing CyanogenMod's code
to be examined.

https://github.com/CyanogenMod/android_external_exfat

[Fernando Cassia]

Post by Eric D
The kernel is posted here =>
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2349756

He edited the post and included a link to the kernel source.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2356371

So I guess this is the part where you realize you over-reacted ;-)

FC

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Eric (Dye),

Post by Eric D
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.

Post by Eric D
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.

Post by Eric D
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.

Post by Eric D
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

Post by Eric D
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.