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

[Eric D]

MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download, when I asked for
source, my request was denied, and his reply was

"When I post a link in my thread you can have it, until then, sorry. The
gpl has no time frame for posting source."

I captured screen shots of my request, as well as his reply, unless he
deletes or alters them, they can be viewed here ->

(please be aware, MikeC84 can alter or remove comments, and the general
public are not made aware that edits have been made)

https://github.com/MikeC84/shooter-ics-crc-3.0.16-3a7b522/commit/ed274254b56cb9433f2b40abd52a1b83a45b8c5b#commitcomment-3569625


Thanks.

[SonWon]

MikeC84 is in violation of the GPL since he is not providing kernel source.
XDA should be informed so hopefully they will do the right thing and
revoke his rights. I am interested in hearing their response.

Post by Eric D
MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download, when I asked
for source, my request was denied, and his reply was
"When I post a link in my thread you can have it, until then, sorry. The
gpl has no time frame for posting source."
I captured screen shots of my request, as well as his reply, unless he
deletes or alters them, they can be viewed here ->
(please be aware, MikeC84 can alter or remove comments, and the general
public are not made aware that edits have been made)
https://github.com/MikeC84/shooter-ics-crc-3.0.16-3a7b522/commit/ed274254b56cb9433f2b40abd52a1b83a45b8c5b#commitcomment-3569625
Thanks.

[Neil Brown]

hopefully they will do the right thing and revoke his rights

There are, of course, a number of tensions at play here, but I am not sure it is in the interest of freedom more generally to hope that a provider of a hosting service would simply revoke someone's rights or remove content on the basis of a complaint?

Unfortunately, the European regime encourages as "just take it down" approach, and, from what I understand, the US regime is better by only a small amount.

Going for an intermediary, whether that is "XDA" or GitHub or anyone else, would seem an unfortunate course of action to my mind.


Best wishes

Neil

__________

Neil Brown
***@neilzone.co.uk | http://neilzone.co.uk

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Eric,

Post by Eric D
MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download,

It would be handy in cases like this to state the URL and the SHA1 or
similar digest of the download to put it on the public record. Others
on the list can then trivially repeat your action.

Post by Eric D
https://github.com/MikeC84/shooter-ics-crc-3.0.16-3a7b522/commit/ed274254b56cb9433f2b40abd52a1b83a45b8c5b#commitcomment-3569625

His latest reply at that URL includes "The latest version of my kernel
was compiled from my open bitbucket repo therefore there is no
violation". Does this mean source is provided after all, or is it that
he has replaced the earlier kernel with a later one and you're after the
source of the earlier one? (One good reason for getting the above
recorded at the time.)

I do think your general attitude, e.g. "thanks for playing", serves only
to get others' backs up. The end aim is to widen the spread of source
code, not to annoy those that transgress when they could be talked
around nicely, with a bit of cajoling, into complying for the benefit of
all.

Cheers, Ralph.

[Eric Appleman]

Post by Ralph Corderoy
Hi Eric,

Post by Eric D
MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download,

It would be handy in cases like this to state the URL and the SHA1 or
similar digest of the download to put it on the public record. Others
on the list can then trivially repeat your action.

Post by Eric D
https://github.com/MikeC84/shooter-ics-crc-3.0.16-3a7b522/commit/ed274254b56cb9433f2b40abd52a1b83a45b8c5b#commitcomment-3569625

His latest reply at that URL includes "The latest version of my kernel
was compiled from my open bitbucket repo therefore there is no
violation". Does this mean source is provided after all, or is it that
he has replaced the earlier kernel with a later one and you're after the
source of the earlier one? (One good reason for getting the above
recorded at the time.)
I do think your general attitude, e.g. "thanks for playing", serves only
to get others' backs up. The end aim is to widen the spread of source
code, not to annoy those that transgress when they could be talked
around nicely, with a bit of cajoling, into complying for the benefit of
all.
Cheers, Ralph.

Eric Dye is misrepresenting the situation. Here's how he, Chad, and his
friends REALLY feel about Mike, the GPL, this list, and its members,
especially Cole who has very been insightful.

https://plus.google.com/communities/117464059617412643281
https://plus.google.com/115556873499158641618/posts/VMpWzqU4669
Screenshot in case everything disappears or is made private, which it
probably will: Loading Image...

He clearly has no interest in being an honest broker for whatever
transgressions may have happened with Mike and Faux.

This is just a smokescreen for Chad apparently losing his website's
domain and suddenly wanting to sue anyone that uses his code. Eric and
Chad just want the blessing of this list to continue acting defiant and
contrary to the spirit of the GPL.

Why should we help the biggest GPL violators in years go after minor GPL
violators who could've been calmly coerced into speedy compliance by
more respectable individuals? Mike made a mistake and then he gets
thrashed for it. That's not how things are supposed to be.

There wouldn't be any problem if Chad simply published patches in a
standard manner with verifiable timestamps. Except he insists on never
committing anything to public repos or upstream. Instead he expects
people to read long-winded articles, believe doctorable screenshots, or
honor what few patches that get published by proxy and rarely have his
name on them. There's also the tired rhetoric of "this was in my binary
months before the source appeared in any tree" and then accuses people
of kanging a source that he never made available in the first place.

Chad can brag all he wants about being the only non-stock kernel with
exFAT, but he always conveniently leaves out the fact that the kernel
contains proprietary licensed Microsoft modules that cannot be legally
distributed. He's not using the open-source exFAT through FUSE or the
literally brand new open-source out-of-tree kernel module by rxrz.

I refuse to deal with people who shamelessly promote warez kernels on
sites that only allow GPL-compliant binaries, convince their followers
to do the same, yet hide the binaries and the
yet-to-be-seen-yet-on-a-public-server source code in unregulated
portions of the internet where GPL enforcement can't reach.

This whole thread was created out of spite and harassment.

- Eric Appleman

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:05:27 -0400, Eric wrote in message

Post by Eric Appleman
Chad can brag all he wants about being the only non-stock kernel with
exFAT, but he always conveniently leaves out the fact that the kernel
contains proprietary licensed Microsoft modules that cannot be
legally distributed. He's not using the open-source exFAT through
FUSE or the literally brand new open-source out-of-tree kernel module
by rxrz.

..maybe he has a license from Microsoft? ;o)
Seriously, what other options are there?

..exFAT "is proprietary and patent-pending" according to both
Microsoft and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT , AFAIR exFAT
was designed to specifically suppress asd prevent GPL etc open
source development and business on Microsoft-compatible file
systems.

Post by Eric Appleman
I refuse to deal with people who shamelessly promote warez kernels on
sites that only allow GPL-compliant binaries, convince their
followers to do the same, yet hide the binaries and the
yet-to-be-seen-yet-on-a-public-server source code in unregulated
portions of the internet where GPL enforcement can't reach.
This whole thread was created out of spite and harassment.
- Eric Appleman

..it looks more like Microsoft style litigation tactics.

[Jeremy Meiss]

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>

Post by Arnt Karlsen
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:05:27 -0400, Eric wrote in message

Post by Eric Appleman
Chad can brag all he wants about being the only non-stock kernel with
exFAT, but he always conveniently leaves out the fact that the kernel
contains proprietary licensed Microsoft modules that cannot be
legally distributed. He's not using the open-source exFAT through
FUSE or the literally brand new open-source out-of-tree kernel module
by rxrz.

..maybe he has a license from Microsoft? ;o)
Seriously, what other options are there?
..exFAT "is proprietary and patent-pending" according to both
Microsoft and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT , AFAIR exFAT
was designed to specifically suppress asd prevent GPL etc open
source development and business on Microsoft-compatible file
systems.

Post by Eric Appleman
I refuse to deal with people who shamelessly promote warez kernels on
sites that only allow GPL-compliant binaries, convince their
followers to do the same, yet hide the binaries and the
yet-to-be-seen-yet-on-a-public-server source code in unregulated
portions of the internet where GPL enforcement can't reach.
This whole thread was created out of spite and harassment.
- Eric Appleman

..it looks more like Microsoft style litigation tactics.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
best case, worst case, and just in case.

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Sun, 7 Jul 2013 14:14:22 -0500, Jeremy wrote in message

Post by Jeremy Meiss
As I am not familiar on ChadGoodman's knowledge of,

..if he knows enough to create a working implementation of exFAT
in a non-Microsoft OS, he must be aware of tech details that are
covered by Microsoft patent claims. How, is an interesting and
discoverable question. ;o)

Post by Jeremy Meiss
or possession of, a license to distribute exFAT I will not comment.

..this too, is discoverable. ;o)

Post by Jeremy Meiss
I am a member of the staff at XDA-Developers and as such have chosen
to reply to this particular discussion

..my wee nitpick on Jeremy; by "this particular discussion", I guess
you meant to refer to the allegations on MikeC84's compliance with
the GPLv2, and not to my guess on Chad Goodman's patent etc license
etc deals with Microsoft. Your choice of context and addressee around
"this particular discussion", left that particularity, construably
unclear enough to warrant this wee swat-down, I've seen "SCO" etc
litigators abuse much clearer contexts than this, this last decade
at Groklaw. ;o)

Post by Jeremy Meiss
, 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),

..they say "timing is everything..." ;oD :
"Scheduled downtime: currently moving data centers" ...
"Bitbucket is currently in the middle of moving data centers and
will be unavailable up to six hours starting from Sunday, July 07,
2013 at 19:00:00 UTC."

Post by Jeremy Meiss
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>

Post by Arnt Karlsen
On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 14:05:27 -0400, Eric wrote in message

Post by Eric Appleman
Chad can brag all he wants about being the only non-stock kernel
with exFAT, but he always conveniently leaves out the fact that
the kernel contains proprietary licensed Microsoft modules that
cannot be legally distributed. He's not using the open-source
exFAT through FUSE or the literally brand new open-source
out-of-tree kernel module by rxrz.

..maybe he has a license from Microsoft? ;o)
Seriously, what other options are there?
..exFAT "is proprietary and patent-pending" according to both
Microsoft and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExFAT , AFAIR exFAT
was designed to specifically suppress asd prevent GPL etc open
source development and business on Microsoft-compatible file
systems.

Post by Eric Appleman
I refuse to deal with people who shamelessly promote warez
kernels on sites that only allow GPL-compliant binaries, convince
their followers to do the same, yet hide the binaries and the
yet-to-be-seen-yet-on-a-public-server source code in unregulated
portions of the internet where GPL enforcement can't reach.
This whole thread was created out of spite and harassment.
- Eric Appleman

..it looks more like Microsoft style litigation tactics.

[luke.leighton]

Post by Ralph Corderoy
Hi Eric,

Post by Eric D
MikeC84 of XDA has a public kernel available for download,

It would be handy in cases like this to state the URL and the SHA1 or
similar digest of the download to put it on the public record. Others
on the list can then trivially repeat your action.

Post by Eric D
https://github.com/MikeC84/shooter-ics-crc-3.0.16-3a7b522/commit/ed274254b56cb9433f2b40abd52a1b83a45b8c5b#commitcomment-3569625

His latest reply at that URL includes "The latest version of my kernel
was compiled from my open bitbucket repo therefore there is no
violation".

unfortunately, that statement underlies a logical fallacy.

assuming that someone *has* released a binary that is compiled with
GPL software, the GPL license requires them to release [or make
available in the ways described in the GPL license] precisely and
exactly that version of the source - in full - and the tools - all of
them - that were used to create that binary.

if they fail to comply, they lose the right to distribute *all*
versions of that software.

so in this case, if there has been a GPL violation - and claiming "i
don't yet have time, i'll do it later" is actually a reasonable
statement, then he would lose the right to distribute the quotes open
quotes repo as well.

however, he's not *quite* at that stage yet, unless he's explicitly said "no".

so, eric, what you have here is a situation where you now need to
count the number of days from when you made the request. if that
number goes beyond a "reasonable" amount, then you're entitled to
remind him. if he fails to comply, *then* he is in violation of the
GPLv2.

"reasonable" is unfortunately not clearly defined in the GPLv2
license itself, and i am sure that you will find others who will be
able to tell you under Copyright Law [in various countries] what a
"reasonable" amount of time to comply with a Software License is.

i believe however that it's also part of Copyright Law - because
you've made the request, and he's now in danger of Criminal Copyright
Infringment - that he now has to demonstrate that he is making
absolutely every reasonable effort to comply with the request for
Copyright compliance.

if it turns out in a court of law that he has *not* spent every
single available free moment making an effort to comply since the
moment that you notified him, then that will not go down very well.

so, in that regard, a blanket statement "when i post you can have it"
could potentially be regarded as being deliberately obstructive. my
advice is that you should make efforts to establish if it is his
intent to comply, i.e. does he understand his obligations. you will
soon establish if he is either genuinely and sincerely busy, or if he
is being deliberately obstructive and has absolutely no intention of
complying with Copyright Law.

l.