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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph Heenan Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 9:18 AM To: [email protected] 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
