AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

[brosis]

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.

[przemoli]

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)

[chithanh]

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.

[rastersoft]

That argument is incorrect

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.

[a user]

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.

[brosis]

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)

Point me those situations exactly as I posted above why this is illegal.
If A gave binaries to B, then A is obligated to provide source per request to B, according to license. No agreements may hinder this right.
If B put the binary on public server, and C got it, then C has full right to demand source from B. B is OBLIGATED to provide source to C, by any means, including executing his rights to demand source from A.

Sure B, may refuse to provide source. But then he will be violating GPL. So he legally must get source, ie the license rights stay same regardless where it sees action.
This is how GPL works.

But the post in question and the discussion at G+ are completely unrelated to the issue you seem to understand to discuss.
The post in question is about source patches, that were privately distributed and applied by an individual, creating a binary form, which he does not distribute.
Now, he is doing this because, prior he made public patches, they were taken, his copyright (not license) changed to other people, then these people claimed they wrote the patches and accused author of the stealing.

To prove that author was not stealing anything, he posted half-broken patches and kept final versions of his own patches to himself.
Naturally, those who was leaching, relabelling and claiming, now had broken system, where the developer's system was working perfectly, proving who was the author and who the copyright relabeling leach.

Finally, original developer just abandoned the corrupted organization (CM, CyanogenMod) and started private development, using vanilla kernel plus patch exchange, to prevent any leaching. Which hardly makes sense, but it is GPL compatible.

He should just create own project, manage the crew and sue everyone who issued claims to own or relabel his copyrighted work.
And for gods sake, he should keep a timeline and allow donations. Eventually, all "good" people will find their way within his project and the corrupted will rot out.

Its all about head of good project being overtaken by bad people.
And now these people want to use GPL to request "working" patches from original author, which has no legal ground, not because of what you stated above, but because he never actually distributed any binaries - and as such, he is not obligated to release binary source.

His mistake was - to not keep the timeline of his modifications, not reacting to copyright relabeling by legal action, not reacting to accusations by legal action. But maybe it will follow, I wish Chad very best.

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.

You have full right to demand source from third parties.
GPL does not allow sublicensing and GPL terms apply everywhere. See above.

[balouba]

Note that the GPL isn't "just an agreement" or a nice "line of conduct". The GPL is a full-blown license, enforced by copyright laws.
Note also that whatever work is done on top of the kernel is less than a fart in the wind compared to the work you're building upon, which has been provided to you for free, with source code, tools, documentation, and what not.

Finally, it seems to me that one of the requirement from the "private community" of "Anthrax" is that you do not redistribute neither code neither source, which in this case is breaking the GPL and thus breaking the law.
Obligatory links:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TradeSecretRelease

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#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.

Oh yeah, also, reading their forums, apparently, if you get approved, you don't get the source either, anyway. You've to ask real hard, and then you generally get banned unless you're helping the devs to code stuff. If that's the case, that's also breaking the law, obviously.

[brosis]

That disclaimer looks like nothing more than a safety valve in case people complained about it. If the "pirates" had the source code they would've released it by now for sure.

I know most of distros distribute binary blobs, but "private comercial forks" of Linux kernels is just an absolutely preposterous concept. Imagine if Samsung asked that we personally sign such an agreement to use their devices kernels. He's trying to exploit a loophole in the GPL because of someone else's mistake, but not receiving the deserved credit for his code doesn't give him the right to sit on top of the Linux kernel developers code as if it were public domain.

Well, Linus should have chosen "any later", thus its not patchable. Chad has no right to distribute his work as closed source within binary, because GPL forbids it and GPL applies to kernel space.

Yet from the looks of it, people complaining seem to be GPL violators themselves. What a mess.

But the original problem was with Chad, because he
did not maintain the public timeline of his improvements. Thus other people could assign his work and accuse him of doing what they did. Given that CM also require CLA/copyright assign, its a terminal mistake.
did not accept donations. Thus other people had motivation to assign his work and gather donations.
did not ask for money for his development. By means of which he could get money or enrollment into organsation that is interested in him, as in developer.
and finally, he resorted to closed source to instead of combating the offenders with their own methods. So he can be pushed into copyright dispute (which wasn't his goal anyway) and FSF will have the choices of "be Samaritan, but allow license exploitation", or "disallow license exploitation, but look inhuman". Either way, both FSF and Chad will loose, while trolls with gain.

Doing it the right way, he would have had authorship, money and GPL code.

Maybe Chad should contact FSF and sort out everything with them?..

[a user]

but because he never actually distributed any binaries - and as such, he is not obligated to release binary source.

he IS actually distributing binaries. the fact that you have to register on a website to acquire them does not change that.

[a user]

While trying to edit my previous post my edit time frame run out... so i post this as a new post.

his intention is to be treated as a private organization (Mr Goodmans own words btw.). for those who may use binaries internally without applying the gpl at all. but i haevly doubt that allowing people to sign up on a web site is enough to make them part of a private organization. this looks like a way to distribute the binaries to public and still avoid the gpl.

this is a grey zone at best.