AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

[ninez]

http://forum.xda-developers.com/show....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 nice start that most likely is already finished;

Mods. Please delete this thread.
There is too much GPL crap in my gmail box over this specific kernel. And this kernel is more complaint than any other kernel I looked at here on xda.

I asked chad to stop making public versions of his special / custom work. I will also be returning his laptop 2mrw.

its not worth Chad's or my time and effort to deal with such BS to share this with anyone, based off all the hate mail in both our gmail accts regarding this specific kernel.

It dont look like anyone had any actual feedback for it anyways...

This kernel was 100% GPL complaint - unlike many others on xda.

http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2593886&page=3

This doesn't surprise me at all, nor should it surprise you, either. After all, you've been screaming GPL (and by the look of it screaming GPLv3, which the linux kernel isn't even licensed under) on several lists for several years, trying to force this guy to give you his changes (which FYI - going about your business this way, will almost NEVER lead to any positive results. ie: you still don't have his changes (after many attempts0 - and by the sound of it - won't be getting them ever.... A smarter approach would have been to make ZERO fuss - get in good with the guy / his crew - get the sources and then release them yourself ~ since GPLv2 would allow that. ~ but even that, may have not been doable - because i have a sneaking suspicion that Chad's code isn't GPL conformant - looking at some of the kmsg stuff he's added (viewable in many places on the web), i get the impression his modules may incorporate proprietary code, yet still he probably is using GPL only symbols internally. ie: no separation/shim/wrapper like Nvidia and AMD drivers do - but that is just my suspicion. <someone who has his kernel running could probably figure out if that is the case or not though>.

[GreatEmerald]

This doesn't surprise me at all, nor should it surprise you, either. After all, you've been screaming GPL (and by the look of it screaming GPLv3, which the linux kernel isn't even licensed under) on several lists for several years, trying to force this guy to give you his changes (which FYI - going about your business this way, will almost NEVER lead to any positive results. ie: you still don't have his changes (after many attempts0 - and by the sound of it - won't be getting them ever.... A smarter approach would have been to make ZERO fuss - get in good with the guy / his crew - get the sources and then release them yourself ~ since GPLv2 would allow that. ~ but even that, may have not been doable - because i have a sneaking suspicion that Chad's code isn't GPL conformant - looking at some of the kmsg stuff he's added (viewable in many places on the web), i get the impression his modules may incorporate proprietary code, yet still he probably is using GPL only symbols internally. ie: no separation/shim/wrapper like Nvidia and AMD drivers do - but that is just my suspicion. <someone who has his kernel running could probably figure out if that is the case or not though>.

Which again means they're digging an even bigger hole for themselves. They're now deliberately breaking the license, and so they would definitely lose a court case, if anyone bothered suing them.

[ninez]

Which again means they're digging an even bigger hole for themselves. They're now deliberately breaking the license, and so they would definitely lose a court case, if anyone bothered suing them.

1st. stop repeating yourself. - we heard you the first time going on about 'digging holes for themselves'... 2nd - We don't actually know that, as i pointed out - that is a possibility/suspicion NOT a fact. (of using GPL only symbols in proprietary code + distributing it, since it hasn't been demonstrated). 3nd, Regardless, in itself, making these sorts of changes, doesn't violate the license (I have FOSS software that contains my own changes, some of which would violate the GPL if i chose to distribute my code, which i don't. /using my changes locally, or within a private organization is 100% legal)... GPL only applies to distribution, not what you do on your own machines or within a private organization. - Anthrax.kernels.us does seem to be a private organization. (or at least there is a pretty good argument to be made that they are a private organization, even if we all believe it's just a ploy to work around linux' GPLv2 license)....

although, i would say in the past, it does appear they _may_ have been distributing Anthrax binaries on XDA (with the sources on request), which may or may not have been legal (although, it would seem not all that uncommon on XDA) -> they no longer even appear to be interested in even doing that - instead a handful of people within/associated with Anthrax.kernels.us are using these binaries/sources - which i say again - may very well fall into the category of 'private organization'.

I don't think this is as cut and dry as you think it is. and fyi, I'm not sticking up for these guys - personally, i don't like the way they operate and i think they are extremely petty. - like many (but not all!) modders/teams/developers in the EVO/XDA community; ...whining and bitching about "who kanged who" - which is hilarious, because very few of them seem to understand that they ALL have copied and used other peoples work...lulz - I've seen posts where these types of losers go on and on about who had which bugfix first, (which they try to hold onto - rather than just upstreaming, which all bug fixes should be!) just to have some advantage over another modder/team... Chad also whines about his wake2sleep changes (which was an idea originating in the mind of a user, who suggested the feature to Chad - not Chad's idea at all!)... yet Chad bitches that some other developer who implemented the same feature (himself, not using Chad's code) a few days later, as if people aren't allowed to implement features that Chad didn't even think up to begin with, or had coded days before... The guy is kind of pathetic/ a bit of an asshat. Here's a little article from 2012 on him; http://www.pocketables.com/2012/11/d...x-kernels.html

[LLStarks]

https://plus.google.com/115556873499158641618/posts/VfAcAdUHU6h

The most interesting bit...

Chad can sell his kernel, and he has the right to refuse to sell it to specific people he if sees fit.
Chad can charge for the source code. so as long as the price of the source code does NOT exceed the cost of the kernel itself. There is NO limit to what Chad can charge for the kernel.
Source needs to be made available only to "users of the software" and only if "requested" by the "user of the software" - and yes, as stated above, a fee can be charged for access to the electronic download of source, as long as it is no more than the cost of the kernel.

Yes, people who "buy" the kernel can share it with who they want with or without a charge, but Chad still has the right to charge for source if the "3rd party" requests source.

The first paragraph is technically accurate. However I can't think of anyone who actually charges for a Linux kernel by itself.

Yet that final sentence is horrifying. It's clear that Chad's efforts are profit-driven and downright spiteful especially when he rightfully chastises lazy XDA developers for soliciting donations.

It's also clear that he intends to exploit every single clause of the GPL for personal gain just because he can as opposed to just behaving like everyone else who don't need to waste energy or thoughts on how to properly honor and following the GPL in both letter and spirit.

It's sickening how somebody can continuously double down rather than taking the easier path of reforming one's self.

Is Chad simply oblivious that the idea of the GPL allowing charges was intended for people who used physical means of distribution or had limited bandwidth?

[dee.]

Is Chad simply oblivious that the idea of the GPL allowing charges was intended for people who used physical means of distribution or had limited bandwidth?

No it's not. Selling GPL software - through any distribution methods, physical or non-physical - is perfectly acceptable, as long as sources are provided when/if requested. There's no clause in the GPL (either version) limiting monetary charges for physical distribution - if that were the case, it would have been added in the license itself.

[droidhacker]

[ 0.000000] All Rights Reserved. For Internal Use Only - Not for public distribution or use.
[ 0.000000] Written, signed, and notorized permission required for use.
[ 0.000000]
[B][ 0.000000] TMO WiFi Calling - Closed Source and (C) 2013 Chad Goodman.
[ 0.000000] Audio Enhancements (C) 2011, 2012, 2013 Chad Goodman
[ 0.000000] Kernel Based MPDEC and THERMALD (C) 2012, 2013 Chad Goodman - All Rights Reserved.[/B]
[ 0.000000] This software is for private use only, therefor you have no rights under GPL unless
[ 0.000000] you have written, signed, and notorized authorization from Chad Goodman to use this kernel.
[ 0.000000] Chad Goodman is not liable for any 'leaked' or unauthorized copies of this software.

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.

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

Ok, so his three most prominent "features"... break down as follows;
tmo wifi calling is code owned by tmo. This is basically a blob that he pulled out of a tmo kernel.
"audio enhancements" is very generic and really doesn't say anything at all.
In kernel mpdec and thermald... is ripped off from show-p1984 from https://github.com/showp1984

It is interesting, because a while back, he stole some of our work that is specifically for apexqtmo device, and featured the changes prominently, yet doesn't even offer a kernel for that device. The code was very specific for the device.

The reason why these clowns don't share source has nothing to do with protecting their own custom code, its to protect THEM from the general knowledge that they didn't do anything besides taking credit for other people's work.

In-kernel mpdec is brilliant work, which I use in my own kernels, and which definitely without QUESTION does NOT originate from anthrax thieves.

[droidhacker]

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.

I'm not CM, yet Chad stole code *I WROTE*, and claimed to be the author.

[mrugiero]

Yet that final sentence is horrifying. It's clear that Chad's efforts are profit-driven and downright spiteful especially when he rightfully chastises lazy XDA developers for soliciting donations.

Actually, I think you should ask him for pricing before making such assumption. It might be he's just switching loopholes: he might ask absurd amounts, as U$S10000000 for the kernel, so he can charge the same amount for the source code, you know, something nobody will be willing to pay just to avoid releasing it.

[LLStarks]

The GPL and FSF allow non-gratis products. Nobody is debating that.

But here we see somebody charging for the Linux kernel by itself, not a complete distribution with GNU tools, not for support or specialized hardware that runs it, and then charging once more for the source.

Just because he thinks the GPL encourages such things.

Judging by Eric's rhetoric, Chad intends to charge a priestly sum for the kernel to recoup for damaged reputation and then price match the cost of source.

He must figure that anyone who would subsidize such egregious behavior would not deign share the binaries or source afterwards in order to justify their purchase.

I see no attempts to run a legitimate organization, just attempts to thwart every single clause of the GPL.

[deanjo]

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

I would have to disagree, if I have a gate on my fence in the yard, it does not mean that the yard is public. If I invite co-workers over to drink some beer in the yard, that wouldn't be public distribution.