GPL code provenance fight breaking out on github, usual suspects involved

(Changing up the title since we've
strayed)

https://github.com/thicklizard/Komodo_new_source/commit/341ce8bdfc86fcfad8b869c59f09f054cd81eca4 
(read first)
https://github.com/markj338/KANGAROO-kernel/commit/da260aa723db1ecb89924db31010389c0731aeb8
https://github.com/MattCrystal/clucking-goose/commit/46a7a01e2561a356441b4701cd83d5388bbfb041
https://github.com/chad-g?tab=activity
https://github.com/ericd858?tab=activity
https://github.com/showp1984?tab=activity

Pay close attention to the comments (you might need to scroll down).

Chad was just caught kanging (stealing) showp's mpdecision CPU governor 
for Android phones. Do note that Chad and his partner Eric Dye have zero 
code on github yet confront others without providing source to back up 
claims.

Re: legal Digest, Vol 100, Issue 10

Re: Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels

sön 2013-05-19 klockan 20:54 -0400 skrev SonWon:

> You missed my point, I was focused on the binary can only be used "on
> the organisations equipment" I just don't see that spelled out in the
> GPL and if you do please point it out to me.  I am willing to learn.

No I did not. You missed what this "organisation" thing is about in
relation to the GPL.

> A member of an organization would have to have download rights to test
> the binary.

Not automatically. There is nothing in the GPL that gives this right.

> I see no need to discuss your point since we disagree and you have
> stated your opinion.  You have your view and I have mine, not a
> problem since we are allowed to have different opinions.

Please note that I stated my view as copyright holder on code that is
possibly infringed upon by this binary distribution.

Regards
Henrik

Would like to form a pool of Linux copyright holders for faster GPL enforcement against Anthrax Kernels

Would anyone be interested in forming such a pool? I am willing to wait 
years for this to be resolved through certain organizations, but I 
believe we can do better.

Last I checked, I have 1 long-time poster of this list on board. Would 
anyone else like to join? Ideally I'd like to get the LKML (which I have 
CC'd) involved so that authors of critical Linux components be a part of 
this. I'm not sure if my defconfig commits to Android kernel branches 
count as contributions, so I'm not going to consider myself a Linux 
contributor unless told otherwise.

This pool would be used in the following manner:

* Formally requesting source for binaries (means to request source
* Formally requesting removal of critical copyrighted code that Linux 
cannot function without
* Informing interested parties with respect to refusals of the above

The CTO of Anthrax's hosting server is very interested in terminating 
Chad Goodman's account. Bullet point #3 might come into effect here.

If this is a bad idea, uses incorrect logic, or does not follow the 
conventions of GPL enforcement, feel free to shoot this idea down with 
utmost prejudice.

- Eric

sounds similar to red hat tm issue Re: Legal Digest: Ubuntu violated the GPL License

2-bsd/isc code using gpl library, is it ok?

hi,

i have a situation where i'm using juniper libradius off freebsd 
(http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/stable/9/lib/libradius/), which is 
2-clause-bsd licensed. for some operations, it uses openssl and libmd 
(openssl- and various-but-bsd-compatible-licensed, respectively) as 
is.

in the course of events, i had to add support for libradius using 
polarssl (gpl, *not* lgpl). it was done so with an intermediate header 
that translates between openssl/polarssl/libmd calling conventions and 
a makeshift common denominator. i have licensed this 2-bsd, same as 
the rest of libradius. the rest of the application that is using 
libradius (and thus indirectly polarssl) is isc-licensed.

(if that wasn't quite clear, the current state of affairs can be seen 
on github: https://github.com/melak/openvpn_radauth).

question is: is it ok this way? if not, what options do i have to make 
it ok? i obviously can't change neither libradius' nor polarssl's 
license (also using these particular libraries for the task at hand is 
a given and can not be changed). i can re-license the rest of the 
application, though, should there be a need.

thanks,

--

-- 
[-]

mkdir /nonexistent

Re: Moderation

I am leaving this list because it is censored

I have sent an email to this list which has not been received by its
recipients. I consider that censorship is always bad. There is reason to
moderate someone's opinion, even if it contrary to ours or if it can
cause discomfort to someone else. The only reason to moderate a message
is because it is spam.

Aggressiveness on a verbal form can be controlled by convincing users
they will obtain better results if it is avoided, not by censorship.

I will wait until someone refutes the fact that my mail was moderated.
Otherwise, I will leave this list on Monday.

Thank you very much for all the information that we have shared for the
creation of a World with more freedom.

--

-- 
Saludos libres,

Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente (en conjunto con el resto de socios)
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(02)-600 8579
IRC: http://webchat.freenode.net?channels=asle&uio=OT10cnVlJjEwPXRydWU3a

Todo correo que reciba será tratado como información pública, de libre copia y modificación, sin
importar cualquier nota de confidencialidad.

Microsoft's extortion of Android, those who give in, do they still hold a license?

Hey all,

yesterday, I  was letting slashdot.org rot my brain a bit, and came to 
this comment [1]:

=====
GPLv2 section 7:

     If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent 
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), 
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or 
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not 
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute 
so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and 
any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not 
distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would 
not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who 
receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you 
could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from 
distribution of the Program.
======
With this reply:
======
Everyone who signs Microsoft's agreement and continues to use the Linux 
kernel is in violation of its license. As such, anyone who holds 
copyright on the code in the kernel could file suit.
======

There was something going on about it being true and not, some mud 
slinging etc.

But does this even hold some form of truth? By paying Microsoft for the 
FAT32 patent (valid or not), does this void your kernel license?

[1] http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3682695&cid=43541367

List Charter

Re: replying to posts