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: http://i.imgur.com/ExRm9xH.jpg 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric D Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:56 PM To: GPL; [email protected] 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, <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Send legal mailing list submissions to [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.gpl-violations.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
