Z9 Series Full and Mini Modded Efudd NO-DEV FEE 100% - Individual Clocking

[efudd]

Mark,

Please see https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en&ref_topic=4558877 - specifically the section titled "Can Google determine copyright ownership?"

-j

[chipless]

Mark,

Please see https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en&ref_topic=4558877 - specifically the section titled "Can Google determine copyright ownership?"

-j

However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide.

Better yet I will just enable my backup plan, I will remove the link for now, it is out there enough for people to share until the new version comes out.

[efudd]

Mark,

Please see https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en&ref_topic=4558877 - specifically the section titled "Can Google determine copyright ownership?"

-j

However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide.

Keep editing your original post... your lies just compound. First it was "the link has been restored", then it was "it will be restored in 72 hours", then it was "I have a backup plan!"...

Sadly, I think you actually believe the things you say.

I would suggest you read up on Dunning-Kruger, but you would not get it.

-j

[efudd]

Mark,

Please see https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en&ref_topic=4558877 - specifically the section titled "Can Google determine copyright ownership?"

-j

However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide.

Better yet I will just enable my backup plan, I will remove the link for now, it is out there enough for people to share until the new version comes out.

Ah, I guess you just received the takedown notice for USC. 17 Section 1201, also and are trying to adjust on the fly as a result?

Keep editing...

-j

[chipless]

Mark,

Please see https://support.google.com/legal/answer/3463239?hl=en&ref_topic=4558877 - specifically the section titled "Can Google determine copyright ownership?"

-j

However it turns out I have a backup plan... I guess if you want it stopped the next step is federal court and we can let the courts decide.

Keep editing your original post... your lies just compound. First it was "the link has been restored", then it was "it will be restored in 72 hours", then it was "I have a backup plan!"...

Sadly, I think you actually believe the things you say.

I would suggest you read up on Dunning-Kruger, but you would not get it.

-j

Rather then go back and forth with you I am going switch to what I should have done in the beginning, you can count this as a win or whatever you want, I only call it a small setback. Nope no notice, it was a decision I made rather then sit and go back and forth

[efudd]

Hey, release whatever you want as long as it has 0 bytes of content from my 'lcgm' or the file I have named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2'.

Good luck on that power inverter!

Also, thank you for this post, it resulted in a net increase of 79 new miners on 2.1d, so I definitely did "enjoy" as you requested.

I'll see you on your next release -- this was your what, 4th release of firmware? You have 5 new threads on bitcointalk, 4 of which are variations on my firmware, one is 'free energy'.

Have a nice evening, Mark.

Jason

[chipless]

Hey, release whatever you want as long as it has 0 bytes of content from my 'lcgm' or the file I have named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2'.

Good luck on that power inverter!

Also, thank you for this post, it resulted in a net increase of 79 new miners on 2.1d, so I definitely did "enjoy" as you requested.

Jason

See I can use whatever I want from it without any violation, its a matter of how I put it together, you cant copyright the code itself you can only try to copyright certain groups of routines. There is more then 1 way to get the final process done that you cant copyright.

There is only 1 variation of your stuff the 2.0c the rest are original work.

I will add any common routine or codes already known to the public cant be copyrighted

[gsrcrxsi314]

Update:

Google pulled the link during the evaluation of the legal aspect of this firmware. After review Google's legal team has determined the firmware released is NOT in any violation of copyrights and has re-enable the download link.

It is determined that efudd has to follow the GPL license for the whole package and MUST allow changes to the package, In order for him to get around this he must do a complete firmware package from scratch and not use the original firmware as his base for modifications.

Told you Jason you had to claim...……..

Can you please tell me more about "circular energy"?

Also, you might want to check again.

--snip--
We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.

Find out more about this topic at the Google Drive Help Center.
--snip--

-j

It will be working fine soon, I received notice on it earlier that it will be re-enabled

Good luck Mr. Grams. While we're waiting, hope about that circular energy? Can you update us on how your attempt to turn 500W into 5000W+ worked out?

-j

You can look into it yourself, I have no help for you on anything. If you want info follow that thread.

You abandoned that thread right around the time your first power bill showed up lolololol

[efudd]

Hey, release whatever you want as long as it has 0 bytes of content from my 'lcgm' or the file I have named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2'.

Good luck on that power inverter!

Also, thank you for this post, it resulted in a net increase of 79 new miners on 2.1d, so I definitely did "enjoy" as you requested.

Jason

See I can use whatever I want from it without any violation, its a matter of how I put it together, you cant copyright the code itself you can only try to copyright certain routines. There is more then 1 way to get the final process done that you cant copyright.

The code in lcgm and the contents that I named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2' is 100% original code dude, not stuff built from someone else's work. You still don't seem to get that.

You are correct that the concept of "code" cannot be copyrighted, but algorithms and methods, *can* be patented. It is literally (and I know what the word 'literally' means) impossible for you to do what I did without violating copyright -- and you don't have the experience or knowledge to even understand that. I don't mean that to be an insult, you just don't show the aptitude to comprehend this.

Kinda like how you were arguing that people didn't understand your energy thing? Except in this, I'm right, and in that, you were wrong.. just like here, where you are wrong.

I mean, you tried to use the fact that you had previously released "my" firmware as an argument to support your energy claims. How ridiculous is that?

BUT, if you'd like to start, learn ARM assembly because a large portion of the core functionality was written in assembly, not C.

Anyway,

Good luck Mr Grams.

-j

[efudd]

And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.

You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.

-j

[gsrcrxsi314]

And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.

You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.

-j

[chipless]

And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.

You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.

-j

That link is gone and any results of harassment from it will come back on you guaranteed, whether it was on a link or not you took it upon yourself to use it for harassment purposes on this forum. Bottom line is you crossed the line here and as I said if any harassment comes to me or my family, you and me have a real big legal problem bigger then your pussy civil action, guaranteed. That's not a threat either it is a guarantee I will take legal action. Same with the pussy wannabe rocketman.

In 25 yrs on the internet your the first baby I have seen cry copyrights violations on any forum that deals with custom firmware and other related hardware/software topics. I have a backup plan already because anyone who mods the firmware can use it for their own personal use and your copyright claims don't mean shit as long as they don't redistribute it.

[efudd]

And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.

You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.

-j

That link is gone and any results of harassment from it will come back on you guaranteed, whether it was on a link or not you took it upon yourself to use it for harassment purposes on this forum. Bottom line is you crossed the line here and as I said if any harassment comes to me or my family, you and me have a real big legal problem bigger then your pussy civil action, guaranteed. That's not a threat either it is a guarantee I will take legal action. Same with the pussy wannabe rocketman.

In 25 yrs on the internet your the first baby I have seen cry copyrights violations on any forum that deals with custom firmware and other related hardware/software topics. I have a backup plan already because anyone who mods the firmware can use it for their own personal use and your copyright claims don't mean shit as long as they don't redistribute it.

I believe you meant "you're", not "your". HTH. HAND.

-j

[chipless]

And just to be clear, "chipless", you posted a link to your name in one of your threads. It's now "public" by your own definitions of what makes something public.

You can stop sending me PMs threatening "criminal actions". The only thing criminal here is your own stupidity.

-j

That link is gone and any results of harassment from it will come back on you guaranteed, whether it was on a link or not you took it upon yourself to use it for harassment purposes on this forum. Bottom line is you crossed the line here and as I said if any harassment comes to me or my family, you and me have a real big legal problem bigger then your pussy civil action, guaranteed. That's not a threat either it is a guarantee I will take legal action. Same with the pussy wannabe rocketman.

In 25 yrs on the internet your the first baby I have seen cry copyrights violations on any forum that deals with custom firmware and other related hardware/software topics. I have a backup plan already because anyone who mods the firmware can use it for their own personal use and your copyright claims don't mean shit as long as they don't redistribute it.

I believe you meant "you're", not "your". HTH. HAND.

-j

Man I had a little respect for you until I just found out about your assault on a female in 2014. Only a pussy would do that. How did it turn out anyways? Innocent? Guilty? Tell us more JLB. I would rather be called a thief, criminal, or whatever you want but man, I sure wouldn't want to be known as a woman beater. Or is it a different Jason? it looks like you need the money more then being free, that dam house payment and the attorneys fee or fines can add up quick...You go your way and I will go mine.... Good Luck

Also if this is associated with you, you may want to check your systems because you may have a bug or virus sending data to sites on the internet

<EFudd> Subject: Req For Winframe Account
 <EFudd> Hi Jason,
 <EFudd> Can U pl... Create this account Immediatly.
 <EFudd> User Id : crapolxx
 <EFudd> Password :crapolxx
 <EFudd> Other Info
 <EFudd> 1) User Full Name:Claudia Rapolxx

[efudd]

Lol.

The humor here is the massive blustering in private message and then here about “criminal actions” and “not a threat, a guarantee”. Yet, you have apparently just tried to do what you claim I did. How is that going to work out for you?

The better part is I actually respected your “command” (you made it clear that it was not a request, your words) and then you attempted to “cause harassment” by your (see how “you are” does not fit here?) own actions.

As far as the quote goes, I submitted that myself to bash.org (which was started and is run by friends of mine) in 1999; it is quite hilarious in the context.

As to the rest, you might want to work on your internet searching skills as they are not properly calibrated.

-j

[chipless]

Lol.

The humor here is the massive blustering in private message and then here about “criminal actions” and “not a threat, a guarantee”. Yet, you have apparently just tried to do what you claim I did. How is that going to work out for you?

The better part is I actually respected your “command” (you made it clear that it was not a request, your words) and  then you attempted to “cause harassment” by your (see how “you are” does not fit here?) own actions.

As far as the quote goes, I submitted that myself to bash.org (which was started and is run by friends of mine) in 1999; it is quite hilarious in the context.

As to the rest, you might want to work on your internet searching skills as they are not properly calibrated.

-j

You think it is all funny but part of it wasn't so funny, I never posted personal details, no city, no state, or any other information that could lead to you, as far as the bash just wanted to inform you of the data in case you had a problem with your system it is on a few sites. The search skills are right on, I know everything I need to about you. You still own the beamer?

[efudd]

Go fish.

-j

[fanatic26_]

So let me get this straight.....

chipless steals code, and by proxy money directly from fudds pockets for something he has earned by putting the work in

then gets indignant when called out about it

and is now threatening things like an angry teenager on an internet rampage


Chipless...you do realize you are 100% in the wrong? Wait why am I asking, you know you are or you wouldnt have removed the link...

You have lost this battle so badly you have nothing left to hang on to other than some empty threats, if I was you I would be so embarrassed I would never post again.

[chipless]

So let me get this straight.....

chipless steals code, and by proxy money directly from fudds pockets for something he has earned by putting the work in

then gets indignant when called out about it

and is now threatening things like an angry teenager on an internet rampage


Chipless...you do realize you are 100% in the wrong? Wait why am I asking, you know you are or you wouldnt have removed the link...

You have lost this battle so badly you have nothing left to hang on to other than some empty threats, if I was you I would be so embarrassed I would never post again.

LOL... No I didn't steal his code I disabled part of it and put it back out in the same exact package he had it in. I never took a penny from any dev fee.... I'm not embarrassed at all. The link was removed and will be replaced with an alternate option for users.

You and fudd are missing some parts that fudd don't want to recognize under the GPL …. It was illegal for him to release the firmware in the beginning period....

He has no rights distribute the firmware unless he follows the GPL of the original package.

The license covers of 100% of the package he started with. Which clearly states if he redistributes the GPL'd work in the package as a complete package then he must follow the GPL and can not add additional terms to the package that exceed the GPL, but if he would have separated his stuff from the package and distributed it differently it wouldn't matter. He can argue all he wants copyright but he at most has copyleft rights which allows me to do what I did. He is restricted from distributing the package commercially unless he follows the GPL, maybe I will just file a takedown on him since he don't want to follow the GPL and is illegally distributing the package.

Read on it here or elsewhere the info is the same

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

"The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL."

"Copyleft applies only when a person seeks to redistribute the program. Developers may make private modified versions with no obligation to divulge the modifications, as long as they do not distribute the modified software to anyone else. Note that copyleft applies only to the software, and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program)"

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

cgminer is open source and he is combining his code in memory to cgminer making it 1 larger program. I can go on but there is no reason to and fudd needs to suck it up and accept what happens with his releases where he used the Bitmain firmware as his base. He needs to create a new base to work from or follow the license of the package he started with. He started with someone elses work and so will I regardless of his claim, maybe he should take his own advice and build the whole package from scratch then he cant whine.



 

[efudd]

chipless,

Sadly, you are still wrong. As the basis of your argument is that the whole distribution ("firmware package") is GPL, when it is not. Further, Communication between lcgm and its associated library and cgminer  do not occur by "exchanging complex internal data structures" for example. They are in fact, not interlinked in that manner. They can, actually, run completely standalone from cgminer, and vice versa. The fact that they are two separate processes is another example of this.

So yeah. Here are some other examples that you will likelyfind reason to ignore.

A linux distribution (which is all this firmware is), is not by itself GPL'd. The individual components within may be, or may have other licenses associated with it. One example is while the kernel is GPL, cgminer is GPL, other components have different licenses. The packaging in that scenario is not "all GPL" as you are continuing to misunderstand.

A linux distribution that ships with apache, will have a combination of GPL and Apache License depending on the content within. nginx, another common webserver/swiss army knife is under a BSD type license, but yet included in many distributions. OpenSSH, another common component distributed in linux distributions, is specifically not GPL, but rather a BSD type license.

You see, a given OS distribution can have unique components within it that have differing licenses. This is part of why I have stated that my claim is on 'lcgm' and the contents that are named 'libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2' for obfuscation purposes.

If your argument were true, RedHat, SUSE, Caldera, Gentoo, and any other common linux distribution would all be in violation for having "GPL" and "non-GPL" code running on the same computer, from the same distribution.

It really is sad if you cannot see the differences here.

-j