Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

    Phoronix: AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

    AnthraX, a kernel used by some for their mobile Android devices as an alternative to the stock kernels or those from other open-source Android projects for reportedly offering better performance and functionality, is still refusing to release the kernel's source-code even though it's based on the Linux kernel and subject to the terms of the GPL...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU1ODA

  • #2
    They are not distributing the kernel publicly and therefore have no need to release their source code.

    Blame the other devs from XDA who ripped off Chad's work passed them as their own.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
      They are not distributing the kernel publicly and therefore have no need to release their source code.
      offering the kernel on a web site for everyone is for me distributing publicly, even though if you have to regesiter first. and the argument by the dev seems absurd. if he would just commited upstream his changes there would be no danger that other claims his work.

      too bad that gpl-violation detects a lot of license violation but somehow i do not remember that they every enforced the law.

      Comment


      • #4
        I've just had a quick look and this whole situation is a lot more complicated and drama-full than the above post would lead you to believe.

        From my take on it, the Kernel in question has never actually been released or distributed, in binary form. Thus, the author isn't violating GPL, but the guy claiming they are has a long history with them. There's a lot of back and forth between them all.

        Comment


        • #5
          This kinda explains everything:

          The GPL gives Chad, myself, and everyone else rights to use code from CAF. We are not required to share compiled binaries with YOU or anyone else. And per the definition of "distribute" as defined in GNUs FAQ, Chad nor myself never distributed any kernel you are requesting source for - therefore we do NOT have to provide YOU source. If you "legally" obtained the kernel directly from Chad, myself, or any member of Chad's team - you would have a written and notorized letter of authorization. This letter provides directions on how to obtain source code.

          Every kernel you obtained is a LEAKED copy. Like I stated before, your best bet is to ask who you got it from for source, and I know for a fact It did not come from Chad or myself.

          Even if you were accidentally given rights to download the kernel, you still need the written letter of authorization, as you were never given rights to connect to the server you got the kernel from (if it came from Chad's (or my) ftp or web server).

          Now, a word of advise...
          you claim that we are illegally using someone else's code...
          If it is licensed under the GPL, we have the legal right to use the code.

          Your statements are considered slanderous and defamation of character.

          If you want to claim we are doing something illegal, it would be in your best interest to post either the penal code, or civil code being violated. If no civil or penal code is violated, no law is broken. PERIOD.

          The repeated GPL violations of your personal friend faux123 (aka Paul Reioux) has cost him ALL rights under the GPL, making every kernel posted since his 1st proven violation a copyright violation.

          His most recent violation is a Moto G kernel, posted 12/24 on XDA and G+, and as of today, there is NO source for it, and requests for source remain unanswered.

          And yes, ALL of your posts are being reported to google for harassment, and this action does delete them from public view.

          Have a good day.
          /thread

          Comment


          • #6
            NVidia or fglx like behaviour?

            Personally I dunno why these guys are bad whereas Nvidia blobs are ok, but I suppose I don't understand.

            In any case, if they say that they aren't distributing the binary kernel, that's fine. If there is a website which is distributing pirated code (including their stuff) then that isn't a new issue, and a DCMA takedown seems like the obvious course of action. It should be noted that if you have the AnthraX kernel and you don't have a letter of Authorization, then you are running pirated code. If you have a letter of Authorization, then you should have acces to the source code.

            I don't know what the agreement that you need to sign with these guys is to get the letter of authorization. Presumably an NDA of some kind, but it wouldn't override the GPL. You personally would be in violation of their NDA, but the GPL would allow you to re-distribute the source code, other people would not be party to the NDA.


            Why not just not go anywhere near these guys?
            Last edited by OneTimeShot; 01-02-2014, 04:32 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Kushan View Post
              I've just had a quick look and this whole situation is a lot more complicated and drama-full than the above post would lead you to believe.

              From my take on it, the Kernel in question has never actually been released or distributed, in binary form. Thus, the author isn't violating GPL, but the guy claiming they are has a long history with them. There's a lot of back and forth between them all.
              Am I missing something? The article mentions that the kernel is used in some Android devices. Isn't that public binary distribution? If you buy a device with that kernel installed the binary has been distributed somehow ....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by birdie View Post
                This kinda explains everything:
                Originally posted by https://plus.google.com/115556873499158641618/posts/KwG8uhU5DGk
                Regarding KERNELS: (not avialable to the public)
                Chad is not responsible for unauthorized or "leaked" copies of the kernel. If you obtained this kernel from chad, you will have a written and notorized letter of authorization. This letter explains how to obtain source. If you do not have this letter, you have a LEAKED or UNAUTHORIZED copy, and leaks are not supported by Chad.
                /thread
                From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....bilityToPublic
                If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge? (#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic)

                No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.
                This means, there is no such thing as "LEAKED or UNAUTHORIZED copy"

                Does the GPL allow me to distribute copies under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA)

                No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

                Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement? (#DoesTheGPLAllowModNDA)

                No. The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.
                This means, "authorization" is has no legal power, because it is exactly a Non-Disclosure Argreement.

                And finally
                If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially? (#GPLCommercially)

                You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.

                Thus, if he DISTRIBUTES, he is bound to PROVIDE SOURCE. and he CAN'T impose ANY RESTRICTIONS on this.

                Comment


                • #9
                  What this guy did wrong - is to distribute a binary with his code, if he wants to charge. This is already breaking freedoms and license.

                  What he should have done is instead provide patches to test under NDA(to patches), that other developers and companies may evaluate and PAY. Only those who paid, will build, evaluate and use. After he is okay with amount, he may propose them into vanilla.

                  Or he does patches into vanilla and gets support or enrollment from/into organizations who appreciate what he does.

                  The second option is much easier for him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by brosis View Post
                    This means, there is no such thing as "LEAKED or UNAUTHORIZED copy"
                    Well, this does talk about source code, not binaries. So the ones that should provide the source are those that do the distribution.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                      Well, this does talk about source code, not binaries. So the ones that should provide the source are those that do the distribution.
                      Yes.. just read https://plus.google.com/115556873499...ts/KwG8uhU5DGk

                      This thing is a lot bigger and Michael only posted a top of iceberg, with accused persons being actually bullied, not guilty.

                      Apparently, he is right - Eric D, got patches, patched kernel and used it on his devices. By not distributing publically the binary form, he is not obligated to do it.

                      But it unwinds even further, just read the link.
                      It is not about breaking GPL as Michael stated - it is about CM (company) using Chad patched kernel and then claiming ownership of all of it, and when Chad started not to release patches publically, they (or their proxy, man who did this infringement post) tries to blackmail the developer that he is breaking GPL.

                      I am completely sure and it was proven in the past, that FSF always takes side of individual developer who asks for compensation.
                      So they will not enforce GPL in any form on to him, even if he breaks it or does other mistakes. At least never, until he is compensated.
                      Last edited by brosis; 01-02-2014, 05:26 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        No voilation here.

                        1) GPL is agreement (not in legal terms, in common sense terms ) between distributor (somebody who gives binary), and somebody who got it from him.
                        2) Distributor can impose ANY prerequisites for such distribution UNLESS they hamper that GPU relation between distributor and somebody who got binaries.

                        IN PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTOR CAN DECIDE NOT TO DISTRIBUTE TO ANYONE!!!

                        3) Source code requirement is valid only for people who got them from THIS particular distributor.

                        So A gave binaries to B, and then B gave it to C. C have NOT FREAKING RIGHT to demand ANYTHING from A.


                        4) If somebody got the binaries, and distribute it further he then enter in GPL relation with whom he shared it. (Then GOTO 1) )

                        RTFL.
                        (And FAQ on gnu.org They have EXACT situations well explained)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          GPL only says that all recipients of binaries have the right to demand source code from the person who gave them the binaries. You do not have the right to demand source code from third parties.

                          Sourceless binaries would not be legal to redistribute (unless you pass along a written offer from the author to get the source), so the "leaked" copies can be regarded as warez.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            That argument is incorrect

                            Originally posted by Sonadow View Post
                            They are not distributing the kernel publicly and therefore have no need to release their source code.
                            The GPL license states clearly that you must offer the source code and the same priviledges you received to anyone that receives your binary code derived from a GPL project. That means that, in this case, since they aren't "freely" distributing the binary kernel, they don't have to "freely" distribute the sources. But they MUST give the source and the rights to each individual that receives the binary. This is: if you sign in and download the binary, you must have the right to also download the source and have the GPL rights over it. If you don't sign, you can't download the binary, so it's not mandatory to offer access to the source.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by przemoli View Post
                              1) GPL is agreement (not in legal terms, in common sense terms ) between distributor (somebody who gives binary), and somebody who got it from him.
                              2) Distributor can impose ANY prerequisites for such distribution UNLESS they hamper that GPU relation between distributor and somebody who got binaries.

                              IN PARTICULAR DISTRIBUTOR CAN DECIDE NOT TO DISTRIBUTE TO ANYONE!!!

                              3) Source code requirement is valid only for people who got them from THIS particular distributor.

                              So A gave binaries to B, and then B gave it to C. C have NOT FREAKING RIGHT to demand ANYTHING from A.


                              4) If somebody got the binaries, and distribute it further he then enter in GPL relation with whom he shared it. (Then GOTO 1) )

                              RTFL.
                              (And FAQ on gnu.org They have EXACT situations well explained)
                              now it apears that the situation is that of person B "leaking" the recieved binary to the public (person C). while it is true that C can't demand the source from A it would be valid for B to demand it from A and then give it to the public.
                              i do not know what's happening behind the scenes but somehow it looks as if A is denying the source even to B. i mean B could be accused from GPL violation but can easily get out of it by demanding the source from A and then rereleasing it.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X