AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

[LLStarks]

He started tiered membership after I started downloading test kernels with the universal membership.

And then I got tiered membership and was still downloading test kernels.

And then he started banning everyone.

And then his domain expired and blamed it on hackers before giving up and moving to Google+ and Infected Rom forums.

And now I was downloading files with 'release' in their name.

How is all this private?

[GreatEmerald]

I think the issue is entirely subjective, at least for us that do not know exactly the definitions implied. I could argue whatever to justify putting it online, yet let it clear that it is there only for the convenience of the company (or whatever), and that it is illegal for the general public to get; the general public would be warned, and thus be responsible if they choose to get the copy.

That would be fair, but that's not what happened. The thread was clearly made in a way where downloading it was advertised.

https://plus.google.com/115556873499...ts/ZXcnb9ttrhm

Here's Eric D (Chad's friend) talking about their new distribution method and how they posted new sources (tarballs?) only to quickly and spitefully remove them.

Such maniacal directions and trust exercises just to become a member.

Sigh. Again reinforcing my opinion that they're just digging a hole for themselves out of sheer blind rage. If you're a victim, breaking laws yourself does not help your case.

[a user]

You are still however part of the forum, a "member" of the Phoronix community in this case. A Forum could be considered an organisiation if the members have a common goal, in their case the anthrax kernel. If people would have not registered on those forums (and not become a member), they would not have had access to the binaries (unless it got leaked).

true, but still considered public. if the access is easily approved for the public it is considered public.

[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.

exfat was leaked and the Software Freedom Conservancy assisted Samsung in making a GPL release that may or may not be royalty-free.

The reason is more to do with Samsung being caught using GPL code as opposed to it being leaked.

[OneTimeShot]

Regarding Public vs Internal distribution

The GPL doesn't contain any provisions for public vs private distribution. It allows you to use the program freely, and to "convey it" to others. You can ask the others nicely to agree not to distribute the software further, but you can't force them and be compliant under GPL. This is how companies tend not to lose their internal GPL software.

In this case, there is definitely a GPL violation somewhere (people have gotten the binaries and are unable to access the source code). It is a bit premature to assume that the original developers are responsible - is there any proof that they even compiled their own code let along gave binaries to other people?

Unfortunately, my understanding of the legal process is:

(1) Someone has to take delivery of the binary through an official channel.
(2) They have to request explicit clarification of the license terms.
(3) If the license terms are anything other than "it's GPL", then they will have to contact a copyright owner to prove that it should be GPL
(4) A copyright holder will have to sue for copyright infringement
(5) Either an agreement will be reached that the code is GPL, or it'll be agreed that the copyright was infringed and they'll have to stop distribution.
(6) Maybe you'll see some source. Maybe this guy stole the source code from somewhere else (Windows source leak? Solaris? HPUX? His own company?). Maybe it won't be garbage. Maybe it won't be a trojan.

Basically, someone is being an idiot. Welcome to the Internet, there are a lot of them around. Certainly you shouldn't look at or go near code which has "legal issues" as this does. That is the key thing here - don't get involved with legal **** unless you are a lawyer. FOSS/Patents/Copyright stuff is complex enough without going out of your way to look for trouble.

[Luke]

This "private distribution" is rather large...

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

This is the kind of ugly case that makes bad laws, just like having a million corner-cases in programming can fill a program with tests, case switches, extra loops, and resulting bloat. OK, lots of people hand out private copies of their work. I've got maybe a dozen copies of my private mix of UbuntuStudio and Mint in circulation among friends and relatives, though they retain all original documentation and all my own programming is scripts and artwork. Here we are talking much larger scale distribution, and there may be no clear line.

What would be to keep Nvidia from creating a "gamer's premium" club where they would use GPL symbols in their blob and fully integrate it, but you have to me a "member" of the club to sign up for qa copy? How to you distinguish between this and someone who does not have a website to post source, binaries, or anything else giving a custom-compiled kernel with a bugfix to a friend with a single problematic laptop, who in turn gives two copies to personal associates with similar machines? From what I am hearing, the GPL is supposed to block the former, permit the latter, so as to keep GPL'ed code from going into fast-tracked, closed-source forks that outstrip and sink our open code.

I can really only see one clear difference: A Linux hacker giving a ready-to-use binary to a friend is unlikely to refuse to provide source the same way the binary was handed over. On the other hand, Nvidia would scream if members of the "gamer's premium" club demanded source for a special version of their blob that used GLP'd code to properly integrate with the kernel. This is a difference not in law but in conduct and intention. What's in it for this crew to sit on their source like a hen on an egg anyway?

[LLStarks]

That's not the problem.

Most people/companies violate out of ignorance or being located in China.

I've never seen one double-down or be spiteful towards the GPL once being questioned or exposed of violations.

[curaga]

true, but still considered public. if the access is easily approved for the public it is considered public.

That's quite a broad definition. You can join many "legal entity"-organizations very easily. Does that make them not-organizations?

[LLStarks]

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2593886

Hmm. A mostly stock kernel from Chad and Eric with a promise of more features in future releases.

A nice start.

[a user]

That's quite a broad definition. You can join many "legal entity"-organizations very easily. Does that make them not-organizations?

that was not my conclusion. the point was that it makes things public available. and beside of that, i do not know of any such organization that lets you join only by a automatic registration process without any human supervising (not to mention giving you access to stuff yielding potential law issues). and at least for some time this was the case here.