Asic.to Firmware 17Series • Optimized efficiency/Performance •

[kano]

...
Not really condoning violation of licenses, but while you are on strike spree, would you mind contacting Bitmain so they can provide theirs?

I have many times.
What's your point?

[1715170500]

1715170500

[1715170500]

1715170500

[1715170500]

1715170500

[mikeywith]

[...]

I don't disagree with whatever you said, but allow me to ask you a few questions and I would appreciate it if you would answer me "politely" ( I know I am asking for too much from you  ).

Bitmain and almost every other mining gear manufacturer sell their miners with a firmware which is based on Cgminer, almost NONE of them provides the source code even upon request (Except for Avalon IIRC), so in short, they all are violating the license because they don't sell you a mining gear unloaded, it has the firmware INSIDE it.

Mind you that is not only Chinese manufacturers, some manufacturers like Obelisk located in Massachusetts also do the same exact thing, so it seems like nobody gives a **** about the license or everyone's lawyer told them it was ok to do so because it's strange to see a dozen of people breaking a license for nearly a decade now and yet nobody went to jail for that, please elaborate why doesn't anyone seem to care but you, and why don't you or anyone else sue all these people for breaking the license?

[favebook]

[...]

What he said. *read a post above mine*

I have many times.
What's your point?

My point is... Have you had any success? If not, why did you stop bothering them, gave up?

[kano]

...
Not really condoning violation of licenses, but while you are on strike spree, would you mind contacting Bitmain so they can provide theirs?

I have many times.
What's your point?

My point is... Have you had any success? If not, why did you stop bothering them, gave up?

Once a change in circumstances for BM occurs, it will be possible to put pressure on them.

[mikeywith]

What he said. *read a post above mine*

None of that answers my questions, he clearly mentioned this

Using his firmware is simply supporting breaking the license and makes you just as bad as him.

I agree 100% to this very statement, but doesn't this also mean that buying mining gears from manufacturers who refuse to release the code upon request such as Bitmain and MicroBt is as bad as using a custom firmware by a random developer who refuses to do the same thing?

What makes Bitmain any different from Asic.to / Awesome miner? They all use cgminer one way or the other, they all violate the GPL 3.0 license, they should all be sued and forced to either release the code, pay a certain amount of fine or both.

But I don't see kano protesting against the purchase of mining gears from Bitmain and Microbt, in fact, he has no problem making a profit by running a pool which makes most if not all of its profit from mining gears made by companies that refuse to release the source code, almost every single block kanopool finds comes from either Bitmain or Microbt gear running a firmware that uses the cgminer code without releasing the source code for it. so kano has a problem with people using custom firmware, but he doesn't have a problem with making money out of those gears that violate the license.

My previous question on why hasn't anyone sued bitmain for this was not a random question, if anything it's jeff garzik who could sue them and probably directly get credited a handsome amount of money in his account, mind you jeff garzik is the original developer of the cpuminer who was assigned by Satoshi himself which then -ck used the cpuminer code to write cgminer which then was improved by Kano (I thank him for that despite his attitude). Jeff has a ton of money, he can probably hire the best lawyers and sue the heck out of all of these license violators, but he is not doing this, neither is -ck, which means they either know that it will be a lost-case or they simply don't give a fuck about it.

[kano]

...
But I don't see kano protesting against the purchase of mining gears from Bitmain
...

Well since you NEVER looked, you wont see anything.

Look and you CAN find MANY posts over the years and comments in IRC, of me telling people NOT to buy BM miners.

Canaan's latest miner is missing the cgminer source code ... I've contacted them about it already also ...

[AlecMe]

How much is the fee on this, now after the halving?

I look forward to your reply.

[favebook]

How much is the fee on this, now after the halving?

I look forward to your reply.

It hasn't changed nor will it change in near future AFAIK.

[taserz]

How is Bitmain or Asic.to violating  gplv3. They are not distributing cgminer. Just a Linux operating system that is allowed to be modified and repacked with other files. You can be in compliance sharing a Linux operating system that has binaries not in compliance. Fun Fact... Notice there are TONS of distros that are like this and would otherwise violate it as you state?

[kano]

How is Bitmain or Asic.to violating  gplv3. They are not distributing cgminer. Just a Linux operating system that is allowed to be modified and repacked with other files. You can be in compliance sharing a Linux operating system that has binaries not in compliance. Fun Fact... Notice there are TONS of distros that are like this and would otherwise violate it as you state?

There are none.

You clearly do not understand licensing.
Let me explain it to you so you can avoid providing false information to people.

Distributing the linux OS can include software that doesn't require source code.
Not everything on the OS distribution must be GPLv3.
EVERYHTING in the linux distribution that IS GPLv3 MUST have source available, or a link to that source.
Some items in the distribution may have other licenses, that the distributors must also adhere to.

Read the above over and over and over until you understand what it says.

While you keep trying to justify, with false statements, your violation of the cgminer license, there is no justification for what you are doing.
You are violating the cgminer license.
Please cease doing it.

[taserz]

here: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

[Biffa]

I'd just like to say I have no axe to grind, I am not a programmer, and I'd dearly love to have a legitimate software update that lets me underclock my locked bitmain hardware. However I understand the logic of what is being asked, and I spent all of 5 seconds finding the actual answers rather than just posting a link to the license text. Everywhere I can see in the GPL FAQ it says you have to provide the source code.

I understand also that bitmain hasn't provided the source code so anyone offering modified firmware can't do it either.

Its a similar scenario to handling stolen goods, just beecause the person who you got the goods from "stole" them first, doesn't mean you can resell or give out the "stolen" goods as legit, especially seeing as you know that they were stolen goods in the first place.

I also get that there isn't really much that anyone can do about it, ck doesn't care, and kano doesn't have the resources to fight a multi-billion dollar company like bitmain, but that doesn't mean that kano doesn't have the right to point out that distributing cgminer in a software package without the source code is wrong.

Things you can find doing a quick serach of the FAQ using the word "source"

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

What does “written offer valid for any third party” mean in GPLv2? Does that mean everyone in the world can get the source to any GPLed program no matter what?

If you choose to provide source through a written offer, then anybody who requests the source from you is entitled to receive it.

If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.

The reason we require the offer to be valid for any third party is so that people who receive the binaries indirectly in that way can order the source code from you.

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?

No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

I downloaded just the binary from the net. If I distribute copies, do I have to get the source and distribute that too?

Yes. The general rule is, if you distribute binaries, you must distribute the complete corresponding source code too. The exception for the case where you received a written offer for source code is quite limited.

I want to distribute binaries, but distributing complete source is inconvenient. Is it ok if I give users the diffs from the “standard” version along with the binaries?

This is a well-meaning request, but this method of providing the source doesn't really do the job.

A user that wants the source a year from now may be unable to get the proper version from another site at that time. The standard distribution site may have a newer version, but the same diffs probably won't work with that version.

So you need to provide complete sources, not just diffs, with the binaries.

I know I'm probably not aware enough of the technicalities "firmware" upgrade process, but can you not create a firmware that doesn't include bmminer? Just leave the one that's on the miner in place when the upgrade script runs? I'm assuming that you haven't modified and recompiled bmminer code because, well you don't have the code to modify (see above), so your just scripting around the voltage/frequency settings and maybe written a custom "optimization" app? No idea. But if you left out the bmminer (cgminer) executable from your firmware then you wouldn't need to provide the source code (that you haven't got anyway)

[taserz]

I wish it was the easy. You see you have to make a custom driver and inject that into bmminer. You can't really get the source of that since you are hacking it together. Also that is correct I do not have the source for bmminer. Sure you can try to decompile the binary but it will not be anywhere near the proper source code nor will it compile properly without hacking the shit out of it. Also controlling voltage/ frequency is not possible with just scripts running on the machine. The bitmain bmminer driver they implement locks all of that out except for the ones they have hidden or tucked away. They don't allow individual chip tuning only full dashboard nore pretty much every feature we have added. We can't give the source for something we don't have or something we patched. If you want that go ask bitmain but good luck they will tell you nope.

Also not including bmminer means it won't mine essentially bricking the asic.

Lastly we don't provide a binary of cgminer or bmminer. We provide a Linux operating system with binaries from various third parties which some do and some don't respect the license they are under. That is like asking the car dealer how the airbag is made. It's just a part they use so they have no idea.

[kano]

...
That is like asking the car dealer how the airbag is made. It's just a part they use so they have no idea.

It's not a car from a car dealer - so I don't really care how your local car dealer tries to rip you off, it's not relevant.

It's a miner firmware you are distributing that contains binaries built using cgminer code.
cgminer is licensed under the GPLv3 ... as you clearly know and have even linked above.
You do not follow the license ... as Biffa has also made clear to you ... even if you didn't bother to read the license you linked.
Aside: ignorance of a license is no excuse under the law to ignore it. But of course you've even linked that you knew the license text itself.

Again:
You are violating the cgminer license.
Please cease doing it.

Though I have pointed this out multiple times to you this year just in this thread, but also in PM.

[Biffa]

I wish it was the easy. You see you have to make a custom driver and inject that into bmminer. You can't really get the source of that since you are hacking it together. Also that is correct I do not have the source for bmminer. Sure you can try to decompile the binary but it will not be anywhere near the proper source code nor will it compile properly without hacking the shit out of it. Also controlling voltage/ frequency is not possible with just scripts running on the machine. The bitmain bmminer driver they implement locks all of that out except for the ones they have hidden or tucked away. They don't allow individual chip tuning only full dashboard nore pretty much every feature we have added. We can't give the source for something we don't have or something we patched. If you want that go ask bitmain but good luck they will tell you nope.

Also not including bmminer means it won't mine essentially bricking the asic.

Lastly we don't provide a binary of cgminer or bmminer. We provide a Linux operating system with binaries from various third parties which some do and some don't respect the license they are under. That is like asking the car dealer how the airbag is made. It's just a part they use so they have no idea.

Firstly,  thanks for the info about injecting a custom driver into bmm/cgminer, I have no idea about how one would go about that, I imagine from your description  that it's not like a separate driver called by the bmminer executable (like a graphics card driver called by the OS) but rather by "injecting" it you are combining it into the cgminer executable?

I didn't mean not including it, but rather not removing the one that is already on the machine, but I guess if you need to replace it with this custom driver injected version, well that rules that idea out.

It appears however, regarding your idea of getting around the GPL by distributing an operating system, you are unfortunately completely wrong about that as well. All GPL3 applications bundled with a Linux distro must provide access to the source code for the application.Even the Linux kernel itself is GPL3 and the source code is available for that.

According to greater minds than I, any application included in a linux distro that is released under GPL3 must be able to give e access to the source of said application. Of course if the application is not published under GPL then its proprietary and you dont need  to provide acces to the source.

i.e.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation

https://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/answer/Clarifying-the-GPL-Why-Linux-distros-cannot-be-copyrighted

https://www.zdnet.com/article/using-gpl-software-in-embedded-applications/

[taserz]

[...]

That is rude. No one should get ripped off by my car dealership. He is nice guy.

How do I know it is using cgminer code? It is a compiled binary?

I did read what I linked. Clearly you didn't read it all and you would know what I am referencing.

Again I did not modify or alter cgminer. I am just providing a Linux operating system. Thank you.

[...]

Yeah the driver is not in the operating system but lives within a program. Think of it as an operating system inside an operating system. Kind of not really but that makes sense. The Inner os doesn't talk to outer os to figure out how to talk to hashboards.

Yeah source code for cgminer is on cgminer github. I did not alter it. Thought that was made pretty clear. You can't give the source code to something you don't have... Please tell me how to make the airbag that is in your car... I don't make airbags I just put it in my car.

Also GPL3 license does not apply to something not under GPL3. It is packaged into a distro. You need to talk to the person that made the cgminer binary... not me. You should email bitmain or just compile it from source except bitmain's shit driver is not in there. You guys are both missing how GPL3 doesn't apply here but I will continue entertaining this. Email https://asicseer.com/ watch what they will say when you ask GPL3 please or please tell me.

Actually here is a quote from last time it was brought up

"but, many armchair GPL retards do not know this, you can build and distribute files on a linux distribution with non-GPL licenses attached"

[kano]

...
I am just providing a Linux operating system.
...

No you aren't.
You are distibuting a firmware that includes Linux and a binary based on the cgminer source code that has the GPLv3 license.
... and you already know this.

You keep contradicting yourself and ignoring the license.
You can't get around the license requirement - stop making up things that you claim allow you to ignore the license.
You can't.

[o_solo_miner]

That is a dielema for people, who want to program something usefull, and the original manufactor is violating the gpl. They can only violate also, or leaving the potential user in the rain by not programing anything.

Or is there a legal way in control of the programer?

[taserz]

No you aren't.
You are distibuting a firmware that includes Linux and a binary based on the cgminer source code that has the GPLv3 license.
... and you already know this.

You keep contradicting yourself and ignoring the license.
You can't get around the license requirement - stop making up things that you claim allow you to ignore the license.
You can't.

How do I know it is based on it? Bitmain didn't say it is cgminer. I can't give the source to something I don't have. I emailed them they said no.

I am not distributing a firmware that is sort of like a bios or to flash something into it's room. This is a Linux distro. We just call it firmware because no one knows the difference anymore.

I no contradict myself. You should read the licensee of gpl3.

[kano]

Well you just better hope that BTC never makes it to $100k
If it does, then I'll probably go to the trouble of getting a bunch of lawyers involved.
I know quite a few lawyers and judges, and one of them is also an IP (Intellectual Property) lawyer.

You'd be first on my list, and asicseer would be second.
Both due to the way you treat the license and make up fake excuses about why you think you can ignore it.