kano,

cgminer is used as-is from bitmain, with no changes of my own. the closest equivalent that I could find and used as a *reference* is https://github.com/bitmaintech/cgminer-dash. To be clear, I do not modify the cgminer in the .tar.gz and it is used as-is from bitmain.

#xnsub support is something *bitmain* claims to have fixed in the release that 2.3 is based off of, simple as that.The "#xnsub properly supported" comment that caught your attention is *marketing*. I have not claimed to have added it in any manner. The wording has been quite precise there in everything I have responded/posted/commented.  (In hindsight, they failed, there is an on-going escalation between NH and Bitmain CxOs with bitmain releasing an updated firmware for the Z11 in private to a user about 36 hours ago).

Loader is simply: https://github.com/kubo/injector - which is a combination of licenses, the relevant one being LGPL 2.1 which really just ensures threads I have written start up.

(This next paragraph is a lot more information than I desire to give up regarding implementation, so I would appreciate it if it was not quoted so I could "...snip..." it out in a later edit... but you have to do you.)
Anything else that is being used is MIT/non-licensed and communications between my stuff and cgminer is honest-to-god using API calls and by proxy is not in violation. Anything else that it does beyond calling cgminer-api, is implemented by talking directly to the hardware, bypassing cgminer. I have reverse engineered the communications to the PIC and simply poke the hardware the right way to get it to do what I want it to do (frequency, voltage, blahblah). I literally fopen() and talk to the fpga mapped memory space.

As a little background, my day job sometimes involves insuring that proprietary code and GPL(+variants) do not intermix. I am not completely clueless when it comes to isolating GPL/non-GPL, and while it is possible I have got something wrong in my isolation between distinct processes (fork/exec of GPL does not make the caller GPLed), I'm pretty darned confident I have not. I put quite a lot of effort into isolation.

Outside of the day job, I've been on both sides of this discussion and have actually encouraged/enforced the release of other projects that were being used/distributed in violation of the GPL.

You are the first person to ask for source, which has greatly surprised me, to be honest.

I have no beef with you, the GPL, etc. and am trying to convey the compliance here and I will be happy to discuss this with you through a medium of your choosing.

To those who merit'd, please feel free to remove as you see fit. I assumed the merit was based on an offer to help a user who has been infected with a malware, to be honest.

Thank you,

Jason

Nope.

I've requested you supply the source to something you distribute and that I have received.

If you wont supply the source (for whatever excuse you may come up with) then you do not have the rights to distribute it.

End of story.

Please supply me with the source.