AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

[LLStarks]

So you distribute it to a person part of your private organization and they are entitled to redistribute it based on GPL. "Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License." So that guy propagates the work to someone who wants the source. The propagator requests to source from the private organization since they are entitled to it to comply with the propagatee who wants the source. The private organization would have to give the source to the propagator? Would me giving a binary to a Test Support guy count as a distribution? Could I work for Samsung and become a tester for Galaxy S 6 and then request the source?

No, you couldn't.

I've tried requesting source for leaked Samsung OTAs, pre-stock builds, and engineering builds. They will only release source immediately before/during an OTA or upon request which is sometimes necessary for the Verizon Galaxy S3.

[AnonymousCoward]

haven't you read: they ARE distributing the binaries via their OWN website!

as i said, from their website. also see this inteview with mr goodman where he claims that this form of distribution is not violating the gpl.
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&...58187178,d.Yms

So what difference does it make if they are distributing it on their website to the members of their organisation? They could just as well send the binaries per email or per disc or heck, even a bunch of floppy disks. The distribution medium is absolutely irrelevant.

If a bunch of people agree not to distribute their modified GPL software to anyone outside their "organisation", then there is nothing you can do. You can ask them nicely to release it publicly, but they don't HAVE to.

As I have said before the GPL only writes about public distribution, not distribution within a company or organisation.

[LLStarks]

Then what's the standard for an organization?

Anything that acts like one? Has a filing with a local government?

[AnonymousCoward]

No, you couldn't.

I've tried requesting source for leaked Samsung OTAs, pre-stock builds, and engineering builds. They will only release source immediately before/during an OTA or upon request which is sometimes necessary for the Verizon Galaxy S3.

That's the point I'm trying to make; leaked or unauthorised copies do not fall under the GPL. They have not officially released their binaries and it got leaked, they are under no obligation to give the source to anyone.

[AnonymousCoward]

Then what's the standard for an organization?

Anything that acts like one? Has a filing with a local government?

If a group of people get together and modify GPL software for use within their own group, they don't need to give the source to anyone (including to their own group members) as they are not publicly releasing anything...

[GreatEmerald]

Found the answer on the FAQ

If I give a copy of a GPLv3-covered program to a coworker at my company, have I ?conveyed? the copy to him? (#v3CoworkerConveying)
As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company, rather than personally, then the answer is no. The copies belong to the company, not to you or the coworker. This copying is propagation, not conveying, because the company is not making copies available to others.

That explicitly states "As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company, rather than personally". So if the software was only used on computers belonging to the Illuminati Internal Network or so, it would apply, but if it's used personally and anyone can become a "member" of the "organisation", then this doesn't apply.

[LLStarks]

That's the point I'm trying to make; leaked or unauthorised copies do not fall under the GPL. They have not officially released their binaries and it got leaked, they are under no obligation to give the source to anyone.

This isn't a leak. This was a release. By the developer. On a public message board that you could sign up in a minute for. And then download the kernels.

http://i.imgur.com/G7ndwH9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/WzworEp.jpg

Release 3a
Release 4

The files have been deleted and hidden behind a loyalty wall here

http://www.androidfilehost.com/profile.php?uid=23252070760975214

[AnonymousCoward]

That explicitly states "As long as you're both using the software in your work at the company, rather than personally". So if the software was only used on computers belonging to the Illuminati Internal Network or so, it would apply, but if it's used personally and anyone can become a "member" of the "organisation", then this doesn't apply.

That implies a public release, which never took place.

[a user]

So what difference does it make if they are distributing it on their website to the members of their organisation?

you missed the point. the website is not to give to already members of their actually non existing organization but instead EVERYONE can register there and by mr goodmans will you may be granted access.

They could just as well send the binaries per email or per disc or heck, even a bunch of floppy disks. The distribution medium is absolutely irrelevant.

as i said, it is not about the medium it is about a PUBLIC distribution that is only restricted by a registration and an authorization process. EDIT: and in the passed there was a time where no authorization actually was needed. everyone who registered automatically got access to the binaries.

if this is enough to be legaly considered part of a private organization i doubt but again i say, i'm no lawyer.

[LLStarks]

I've watched Chad progressively lock down his binaries over the past year to the point where nobody can get them and access to Anthrax is now an exclusive club on a filesharing site his old domain was associated with.

That implies a public release, which never took place.

Yet the post above yours suggests otherwise.