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

[gsrcrxsi314]

Notice how while he pulled the download link, he left his crypto address for donations. Lmao.

[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'.

Jason

Jason,

You need to be a little more specific on what parts of the code you claiming copyright, you cant claim the whole files because most or many of the commands are common routines or otherwise known to the general public already. So please be a little more specific.
Also the files are not covered  under the 17 U.S. Code § 1201 as ruled by the courts already

"if the circumventor obtains access to the copyrighted material through a copyright owner-sponsored method, even if that access is illegally obtained, the circumventor is merely bypassing permission of the copyright owner and does not violate the DMCA"

and

The courts have also ruled that since you did not encrypt the files there is no violation either under DMCA or 17 U.S. Code § 1201.

So basically we are back to the copyright only. I will have more in the next few days once I hear back from legal sources.

Your lgcm does not allow cgminer to run either if killed so the relationship between them is more then you are trying to claim. In fact if I kill the process cgminer stops and then restarts with the lgcm also restarted. Therefore at this point your files took control over an opensource file 100% and their relationship is a little more intimate then you lead on.

[efudd]

Just because you don’t know how does not mean it can’t. Try contacting a technical resource to give you clue.

Kill lcgm, stop the auto restart by renaming it, run cgminer. Voila, factory firmware.

-j

[gsrcrxsi314]

Just because you don’t know how does not mean it can’t. Try contacting a technical resource to give you clue.

Story of his life

[chipless]

Just because you don’t know how does not mean it can’t. Try contacting a technical resource to give you clue.

Kill lcgm, stop the auto restart by renaming it, run cgminer. Voila, factory firmware.

-j

I wasn't asking how to stop it, I was informing you that your claim of separation from the open source program is much more intimate
then you claimed and that indeed your files take over cgminer 100% in an attempt to turn an open source program into your own pay program. This appears that you are claiming another's work (cgminer and Bitmain's) as your own. Which the copyright of Bitmain's is clearly shown the firmware is copyrighted. I will also be reporting your LGPL violation for the libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 file and library package.

[efudd]

A filename does not equate to the contents... so report away.... since the contents of the file named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2' shipped in my firmware has absolutely nothing to do with the the GNU 'libnss-mdns'. You are unfortunately incapable of grokking the semantic.

This will be my last response to you, so enjoy your freedom to make more crap up.

-j

[chipless]

A filename does not equate to the contents... so report away.... since the contents of the file named 'libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2' shipped in my firmware has absolutely nothing to do with the the GNU 'libnss-mdns'. You are unfortunately incapable of grokking the semantic.

This will be my last response to you, so enjoy your freedom to make more crap up.

-j

It has a lot to do with it because that file is a LGPL protected file and removing it and replacing it doesn't protect your contents, that file to begin with was part of a library package and by you removing it from the package is a modification and replacing it with the same name under the LGPL, I don't know why you are trying to claim it is not. I will have the full details once I get it all back from being looked at for violations of the existing license's.  Unfortunately for you this person knows much more then you and I on this matter since he holds numerous copyrights including work I have done and numerous patents for arm and apple technology. You obviously cant grasp the fact you screwed up and I can legally use and distribute the files in the released package.

You may think your dealing with an idiot because the way I am on this forum but you are very wrong about me and my understanding and education on matters. I have as much experience at this as you do the only difference is the type of device we are dealing with including experience is evidence processing where analyzing this type of situation was part of my job.

[gsrcrxsi314]

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

[chipless]

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

Nothing is abandoned, The threads will go on, I am not wrong and will post all the details in the next day or so. The law and the licenses speak for themselves. I am verifying the details thru legal channels before I post more. Unfortunately for efudd it is not good for his files and if he chooses to fight it he will have to spend some money in federal court to try to stop it, his state court has no jurisdiction here. I have many rights under the law and copyright that allows me to use the package whether Jason recognizes them or not it is the law.

[efudd]

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

Nothing is abandoned, The threads will go on, I am not wrong and will post all the details in the next day or so. The law and the licenses speak for themselves. I am verifying the details thru legal channels before I post more. Unfortunately for efudd it is not good for his files and if he chooses to fight it he will have to spend some money in federal court to try to stop it, his state court has no jurisdiction here. I have many rights under the law and copyright that allows me to use the package whether Jason recognizes them or not it is the law.

(Arg, I can't seem to not respond to this freaking stupidity...)

You are a blithering idiot.

Zero code in cgminer was changed, even at runtime. The only thing that has "changed" is allowing the user to specify a frequency which is not a change in the code, but rather a change in the argument provided to a function/API.

That function is "set_frequency_chain()".

$ strings cgminer|grep set_frequency
set_frequency_chain

_LITERALLY_ the only thing "changed" is that the user has the ability to specify a frequency to that function. That function was not re-written in any way and is used exactly as bitmain provided (I don't have the source, bitmain doesn't release it).

That's it.

So, to make your own firmware, follow these easy steps:

The rest is simple: hook the function and call the _original_ function with the frequencies specified by the user. "Ta-Da!".

Then go modify the web interfaces, the configuration handling, the startup files, etc. to support the new frequency options and presentation to the end user. *THAT* *IS* GPL and you *HAVE* the source code by proxy of actually having the firmware itself. The modifications I made to say, 'minerStatus.html' *IS* GPL, but the changes I made, I own the copyright on. YOU by proxy have a LICENSE to re-use that GPL'd content, even the portion of my changes that are mine.

Also, learn how this stuff actually works so you can _help_ users.

Ask your "lawyer friend" about copyright vs. license.

Oh, and none of the above is what I am claiming a violation of my copyright on. The code which handles licensing and enforcement, as well as dev-fee handling, and handling of the user choice of frequency (not counting the web pages which are GPL) before it is passed to the _default_ cgminer function is not GPL and is proprietary and *THAT* is what you should not redistribute or modify.

-j

[gsrcrxsi314]

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

Nothing is abandoned, The threads will go on, I am not wrong and will post all the details in the next day or so.

3 days later

*crickets*

[efudd]

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

Nothing is abandoned, The threads will go on, I am not wrong and will post all the details in the next day or so.

3 days later

*crickets*

Oh, he is waiting for Google’s default DMCA process handling to “prove” he is correct. See, google actually disavows itself of Copyright claim. It will respond to an initial complaint by removing the content. However, if a counter claim is filed, regardless of the legitimacy, google will notify the original filer (me) of that action and provide 10 days during which time a court order, intention to file, etc. must be handed to google otherwise they will default to reenabling the link.

Remember that and think back to his posts saying “google has agreed with me and the link is active”, which it was not. Then remember he said google contacted him and told him it would be reinstated in 72 hours, which they did not and it did not go live again.

Etc..

so in a couple more days his link will go live again I expect, but only due to timing. Google does not appear to be willing to work with me on their “10 days”, despite the filings actually being in process.

What he also does not understand is that IF I was in violation of the GPL the limitation of my liability is, per the GPL website, that “the community may look down on me”.

However, if my claim is correct, then outside of the GPL, his posting for free of a paid work would be subject to remuneration of my loss of income by his actions if such a thing to go to court and my claims be proven correct.

To summarize, if I’m wrong, “oops”. If he is wrong, he would be subject to fines and repayment of my losses. ... and since I had this happen before and can actually define the losses by practical example, it would not be pretty.

... and the last response I provided some of the implementation details hoping to provide him some wisdom that he should share with his “lawyer friends” before continuing. If any of them actually specialize in IP law and copyright, they should advise him similarly and of the “costs” of him being wrong.

But hey, what do I know. I am not a lawyer. Just someone with the clue enough to not violate GPL in the implementation of my work specifically to ensure it was defendable.

-j

[fanatic26_]

bla bla bla

I dont know about you, but as a child I was taught that 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Your argument for why its ok for you to be shitty is that he was shitty first? Wow man you really look like a winner with that attitude....

[chipless]

I predict this will be another abandoned thread once chipless realizes that he’s wrong. Just like his Alternative Energy thread lmao

Nothing is abandoned, The threads will go on, I am not wrong and will post all the details in the next day or so.

3 days later

*crickets*

Oh, he is waiting for Google’s default DMCA process handling to “prove” he is correct. See, google actually disavows itself of Copyright claim. It will respond to an initial complaint by removing the content. However, if a counter claim is filed, regardless of the legitimacy, google will notify the original filer (me) of that action and provide 10 days during which time a court order, intention to file, etc. must be handed to google otherwise they will default to reenabling the link.

Remember that and think back to his posts saying “google has agreed with me and the link is active”, which it was not. Then remember he said google contacted him and told him it would be reinstated in 72 hours, which they did not and it did not go live again.

Etc..

so in a couple more days his link will go live again I expect, but only due to timing. Google does not appear to be willing to work with me on their “10 days”, despite the filings actually being in process.

What he also does not understand is that IF I was in violation of the GPL the limitation of my liability is, per the GPL website, that “the community may look down on me”.

However, if my claim is correct, then outside of the GPL, his posting for free of a paid work would be subject to remuneration of my loss of income by his actions if such a thing to go to court and my claims be proven correct.

To summarize, if I’m wrong, “oops”. If he is wrong, he would be subject to fines and repayment of my losses. ... and since I had this happen before and can actually define the losses by practical example, it would not be pretty.

... and the last response I provided some of the implementation details hoping to provide him some wisdom that he should share with his “lawyer friends” before continuing. If any of them actually specialize in IP law and copyright, they should advise him similarly and of the “costs” of him being wrong.

But hey, what do I know. I am not a lawyer. Just someone with the clue enough to not violate GPL in the implementation of my work specifically to ensure it was defendable.

-j

Actually I have been busy on something else and have heard back from the legal sources. I will get the conclusions together with links for you to possibly reference over the next few days. As far as you claiming losses you already admitted it has increased your users so that is an increase and not a loss, you even thanked me for posting the file.

After I post the information there will be no more debate with you on it and I will await your papers from federal court if you feel the need to file anything. At this point it would be up the courts to make a decision on the current situation whether I am or you are in violation of copyrights and license violations. From some of the conclusion if argued by Bitmain we both would be in violation.

[chipless]

bla bla bla

I dont know about you, but as a child I was taught that 2 wrongs dont make a right.

Your argument for why its ok for you to be shitty is that he was shitty first? Wow man you really look like a winner with that attitude....

That was no argument that was a statement as to why I modified the firmware, It was to inform that I did try to be a customer and there were issues because I pointed out things going on with his fw.

At that point is when I decided to make changes myself, even then I did not release it right away I waited over a month from the first stable mod I made. So lets not act like I just made the changes and released it immediately I was being fair until Jason wanted to be an ass when I inquired for some clients.

If your going to be in the sales business you need to sometimes just suck it up and move on because your actions to 1 customer can show a lot of character. What's to say another user doesn't say or do something to make him mad, then the next thing he is messing with your machines because of it. I was always told don't judge a book by its cover and that same principle applies to a forum.

As far as 2 wrongs making it right, there is a point there. I look at it as 2 wrongs can break even sometimes. If you were accused by Jason for trying to steal or rip him off like he did to me a few months back for asking whether he offers his beta testers a free license, then you would understand. I could sue him for false accusations without proof or facts.

[efudd]

Sometimes, a business fires a customer, too.

Just. Sad.

-j

[chipless]

You don't have a legal right for libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 to deny me the rights to use or make changes lgcm is directly related to
the other file and cgminer in a roundabout way so they are also part of it all.

You may not agree and at this point I said I will not debate anymore on the matter and will await your Federal Court Order to pul it
back down or destroy it. Any further harassment from you for the use withuot a Federal Court Order could result in civil legals actions
against you.

If it makes you happy I did take a word of advice from you, I had a legal team look at the factory firmware, yours, and the one I did
to come to the following conclusions.

Conclusion 1:

Since you changed the original file libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 that was copyrighted and LGPL'd deleting it and replacing it with a file
the same name regardless of the contents or whether is was being used or not is considered a modification of the library package
which is copyrighted and LGPL licensed. The change in contents under the law and license is a modification and the copyright and license cant be side stepped the way you are trying to.

Under the LGPL license you must allow others to use that file now for free of charge, supply the source code and object files
for the file libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 and to allow modifications. Failure to do so puts you in violation of the origional
creators copyrights and LGPL license terms. Which you are already in violation of because you failed to notify users the library
package is no longer the origional files and modifications have been made.

The file lcgm legally under LGPL's linking terms to libnss_mdsn_minimal.so.2 makes it become one bigger program.

Your claim to obfusicate the contents with that name is irrelevent to the situation, the facts show you used the LGPL'd library
package file to create a modification of the library.

Package Data

Package: libnss-mdns
Version: 0.10-r7.0
Description: libnss-mdns version 0.10-r7
NSS module for Multicast DNS name resolution
Section: libs
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Angstrom Developers <angstrom-distro-devel@linuxtogo.org>
License: LGPLv2.1+
Architecture: armv7ahf-vfp-neon
OE: libnss-mdns
Homepage: http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/nss-mdns/
Depends: avahi-daemon, libc6 (>= 2.17)
Source: http://0pointer.de/lennart/projects/nss-mdns/nss-mdns-0.10.tar.gz

Package Included files

/lib/libnss_mdns6_minimal.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns6.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns4_minimal.so.2
/lib/libnss_mdns_minimal.so.2  ------ File you are trying to claim copyright on
/lib/libnss_mdns4.so.2


Conclusion 2:

You have no claim to DMCA violations as stated in 17 U.S. Code §1201 Circumvention of copyright protection systems:
 
"if the circumventor obtains access to the copyrighted material through a copyright owner-sponsored method, even if that access is illegally obtained, the circumventor is merely bypassing permission of the copyright owner and does not violate the DMCA"

Your owner-sponsored method was used in my modification. I did not have to do anything to decrypt the files, where it has been ruled by the courts that if there is no encryption then there is no violation. You also released it to the public I did not have to obtain it illegally.


Conclusion 3

Under the copyright laws "Fair Use" provisions I may claim "Transformative Use" which is allowed without your permission and not in violation of the claimed copyrighted files. You may view for some details but not all Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569.

Under 17 U.S. Code §117 Sub. D, any person may use the code for maintnance or repair, in this case to set cgminer back to a fully free
program which is factory specs. It already had overclocking so that part doesnt matter in this situation. Only thing here you can do is
file for me to destroy the copy, and my defense would be that I cant just make a copy from the machine thru it's normal operation. When in a situation like that the copy does not have to be destroyed always.

Conclusion 4

You cannot claim a loss in revenue since you thanked me for increasing your user base which is an increase in profit and not a loss. It would be hard now to go into court and change your mind, any losses now cannot be proven to be directly related to what I released since there was an increase in users and not a decrease.


Conclusion 5

You are in violation of Bitmain copyrights and cannot claim a violation while you are in violation yourself. Some files are copyrighted by Bitmain and not open source they do clearly notify the users at the bottom of the screen with the copyright symbol. I have verification and the emails between Bitmain and myself clearly stating the copyrights status. The current license status file shipped with cgminer in the firmware package is marked as "Closed" other files have their own copyright and licenses.

[efudd]

lol.

You are hopeless sir, completely hopeless.

Here's a bone for you; the version you have will actually run on a Mini, however it will try to initialize as a large. After a couple of retry conditions it will successfully bring a mini up, but data outputs such as fan speed and temperature will either be unreliable or not respond at all. Second, there are certain error conditions where the Z9 firmware running on a Mini will fail completely even after a successful start due to the ASIC count being off by 12 per chain.

Good luck with your endeavors.

-j

[chipless]

lol.

You are hopeless sir, completely hopeless.

Here's a bone for you; the version you have will actually run on a Mini, however it will try to initialize as a large. After a couple of retry conditions it will successfully bring a mini up, but data outputs such as fan speed and temperature will either be unreliable or not respond at all. Second, there are certain error conditions where the Z9 firmware running on a Mini will fail completely even after a successful start due to the ASIC count being off by 12 per chain.

Good luck with your endeavors.

-j

Don't know if your trying to throw a bone or a curveball but either way it will be noted. I will also agree not to mess with anything you put out after 2.1d and let you move on with it all. So I will play with the old and you can have the new, I will also consider implementing a users choice they can choose your dev mode or free mode from the configuration screen. This way you can still get support from users who choose to go that way since some did express their view on my mod or I may not do nothing more to it. Sound fair to work it out this way?

Personally I would have made a non-dev mode but limited to say 2 clocks instead of 3 in non-dev and the full 3 in dev or a selectable dev-fee per clock if they clock 1 different they dev for x minutes if they clock 2 separate then the dev is longer and so on. Based on the coin prices there are times when dev-fees are eating the profit, an example is the minis now are only about 30 or so a month profit after electric.


The issue with it dropping on a mini is the detection of errors will look for 8 of 16 asics and a 4 count is too little or fan/tmp. That is at least from my playing that is what I have come up with.

[efudd]

lol.

You are hopeless sir, completely hopeless.

Here's a bone for you; the version you have will actually run on a Mini, however it will try to initialize as a large. After a couple of retry conditions it will successfully bring a mini up, but data outputs such as fan speed and temperature will either be unreliable or not respond at all. Second, there are certain error conditions where the Z9 firmware running on a Mini will fail completely even after a successful start due to the ASIC count being off by 12 per chain.

Good luck with your endeavors.

-j

....
The issue with it dropping on a mini is the detection of errors will look for 8 of 16 asics and a 4 count is too little or fan/tmp. That is at least from my playing that is what I have come up with.

That edit you just made to your response to add what I left quoted is a perfect example of why you are hopeless... I *LITERALLY* told you that in my response when I said "... ASIC count being off by 12 per chain". ... and that is NOT the reason why fan/temp won't work properly.

... on first start up, it will retry 3 times, not have the proper count, but continue on anyway (factory behaviour). I said this when I said "... after a couple of retry conditions...".

The problem is *PAST* that case, after things are running, even if fan/temp are not presenting properly, there are additional failure conditions that will terminate cgminer and restart the whole process in a longer loop.

There are very good reasons why I did not "unify" the firmware so one could run on both models...

*sigh*.

"Honey, I can't go to bed yet, someone is wrong on the Internet!"

-j