Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 115

Thread: AnthraX Linux Kernels Remain Closed Source

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    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?..
    And maybe he could just publish the code and he and CM just part their ways nicely?
    Nah, that would be too simple and not fun.

    (And hey, if CM requires copyright asignment then I don't see what the initial problem was in the first place.)

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    299

    Default

    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    54

    Default

    How does this apply to development? If I am developing a fork of the kernel at what point do I need to release the source? I know some android manufacturers have released phone first then weeks or months later the source for the kernel modifications. If he's giving the kernel to people part of a private group, isn't he still just testing? Is he making lots of money from this? If he's mucking with the kernel and giving it to a few thousand people, why do we or the FSF care? Is he holding on to the kernel code equivalent to the cure for cancer?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    this is a grey zone at best.
    I don't think so - it is pretty clear. If you are supplying binaries to someone you also need to supply source code to them even within a private organisation, and you can't prevent redistribution of that source code *for copyright reasons*. Normally within a company you'll not redistribute the source code because you'll get fired, and that outcome isn't in violation of the GPL.

    If the developers say that they have not supplied the binaries to you, then by definition they cannot be breaking copyright (and hence the GPL). The question is where people are getting these copyright binaries from and whether these places are complying with the GPL. If they aren't then this is no different to pirating Windows or the latest Hobbit movie...


    In any case, this project is going to die because surely no-one is stupid enough to install random binaries that aren't even acknowledged by the people who may or may not have written them?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brosis View Post
    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.


    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?..
    Why? FSF doesn't own rights to the Linux kernel. They can't do anything about Linux kernel GPL violations.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    This is indeed all about what constitutes a "private organization". The FSF's view is that it means a legal entity.

    My opinion is that informal organizations are still organizations. If I hold a private gaming club, that's not a legal entity, but it is still an organization in my eyes.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    This is indeed all about what constitutes a "private organization". The FSF's view is that it means a legal entity.

    My opinion is that informal organizations are still organizations. If I hold a private gaming club, that's not a legal entity, but it is still an organization in my eyes.
    If you fork my GPL'd game and distribute it among your club buddies, in my eyes you're violating my copyright and you need to make your source code public. If it's all just a matter of personal view, we won't go very far.

    There's no reason not to distribute GPL code. If you wanna keep your code closed and sell it to others then don't use GPL code as your basis.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nll_a View Post
    If you fork my GPL'd game and distribute it among your club buddies, in my eyes you're violating my copyright and you need to make your source code public. If it's all just a matter of personal view, we won't go very far.

    There's no reason not to distribute GPL code. If you wanna keep your code closed and sell it to others then don't use GPL code as your basis.
    Sorry - you've picked the wrong license then. The GPL only covers the people who *receive* the binaries, if you're not one of them, you are a bystander.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    545

    Default

    LOL, I remember reading about a comparable case, where some HP devices have been delivered with a modified Android kernel (which has been used at HP internally). HP claimed the distribution being unauthorized. And guess what? The devs asking for the source received it from HP. They had to resort to involving lawyers though.

    Details: http://code.google.com/p/cmtouchpad/issues/detail?id=16
    Released source code: https://github.com/dalingrin/hp-kern...-topaz-android

    So yeah, LEAKED or UNAUTHORIZED is something they AnthraX guys should really talk about with their lawyers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •