AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

[GreatEmerald]

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)....

Oh, I was reading your quote wrong. I thought they removed the sources but kept offering the binaries, but they actually did the opposite (for some reason). Well, then they are just acting immaturely, but they aren't making it as much worse as I thought.

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

Yea, that. The kernel costs $0, so they can charge up to... $0? That's quite the sum...

[ninez]

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

Yeah, Chad seems to be quite the duchebag. As far as his sound enhancements, take a look here; https://bitbucket.org/bigwillyg/butt...t=Experimental ... he (Chad Goodman/Anthrax) makes some comments about some of the headers and C files that aren't publicly available - although in one case, it appears that fuax123 actually has one of these files, in one of his trees. The files to do with audio enhancements seem to be;

msn8x60_beats.h
anthrax_audio.h
monsteraudio_8x60.h

msm8x60_beats.c
htc-beats_armv7.c
anthrax_cpu_topology.c
anthrax_audio.c
monster_audio.c

the branch i linked to, seems to have quite a few commits by Chad Goodman - I wonder how many of those have been pulled from other sources? (just take a look at the commits - https://bitbucket.org/bigwillyg/butt...h/Experimental - the experimental branch seems to have the most commits/code from Chad... it would be funny if someone could find original patches written by someone else, that he claims are his - might be worth a laugh or two).

[cry0x]

So many misconceptions in this thread.

Chad must provide, with the binary, either the full source code or a written offer for source code. According to section 3b, the written offer must be valid for up to three years *FOR ANY THIRD PARTY*. Chad does not do this. He will only give source code to the original recipient of the written offer. This is a GPL violation.

In addition, his way of honoring his written offer is to charge you again for the source code. This is also a GPL violation.

If I buy Chad's kernel, I can redistribute it along with the written offer for source I received, and he MUST honor the offer for ANYONE who presents it. I do *NOT* have to provide source code with my non-commerical redistribution since I have complied with GPL v2 Section 3C.

Read the license. It's all there in plain English.

[intellivision]

From what I see, he's created an organisation which any person is free to join.
Since all signed up users are part of the organisation, it's internal distribution so the GPL doesn't kick in.

A way to resolve this would be to deprecate the GPL and replace it with the AGPL.

[cry0x]

From what I see, he's created an organisation which any person is free to join.
Since all signed up users are part of the organisation, it's internal distribution so the GPL doesn't kick in.

A way to resolve this would be to deprecate the GPL and replace it with the AGPL.

He charges for access to the binary, and then charges you again when you ask for source code. Clearly that is not an "internal distribution". It's a business and the people getting the binaries and source are customers.

[Thatguy]

10 pages, and not once has anyone stated the obvious, the gpl and its variants are a giant cluster fuck.

[LLStarks]

He charges for access to the binary, and then charges you again when you ask for source code. Clearly that is not an "internal distribution". It's a business and the people getting the binaries and source are customers.

He's trying to have it both ways and spent most of 2013 claiming "members" and "donating testers" so it's quite confusing that the tactic has now switched to "customers".

[cry0x]

10 pages, and not once has anyone stated the obvious, the gpl and its variants are a giant cluster fuck.

The license is pretty short and simple. The problem is when people read the FAQ instead of the license, and draw conclusions which match their desires.

I've never seen Chad or Eric quote the GPL text directly. They always posts blurbs from the FAQ to support their methods. I'm sure they are both (if they aren't the same person) very aware of what the GPL says, but chose to ignore it.

[cry0x]

He's trying to have it both ways and spent most of 2013 claiming "members" and "donating testers" so it's quite confusing that the tactic has now switched to "customers".

Welcome to the amazing display of gymnastics required to avoid GPL compliance.

[intellivision]

He charges for access to the binary, and then charges you again when you ask for source code. Clearly that is not an "internal distribution". It's a business and the people getting the binaries and source are customers.

Billing people within an organisation isn't unheard of, I guess he would argue that this is an extension on top of this.

To me, the 'internal distribution' clause is open ended and open to abuse, people who don't want this to happen to their code should move to the AGPL.