All Activity

Weird.. because you all said it was a choice to leave things open and not protected... Wonderful, so we have established that Tepache did not provide firmware, and did not circumvent anything, because it didn't supply your firmware, or your updates, or software, or links to get said software. Therefore making your DMCA claim of circumvention, once again, false. We can do word play all day, but it's all starting to get very tiring. You wanted to clear the air about things. You referenced your article, repeatedly When questioned about things in the article, you shifted to specifics about code theft and not the article as a whole. When other people got frustrated by this, instead of removing the lies, false claims, false attributions, and the rhetoric that they are somehow responsible for theft of your code, you asked for updated screenshots. Not offering to delete any of the bullshit you posted. When holes were started to be poked in your logic about the code theft, you made absurd statements like "they're different, but the same" which makes no logical sense. Now you're just going to ignore entire sections of things and selectively responding to stuff that you have previously had canned responses to. Unless you can prove any of the claims you've made, stop making accusations and trying to take people down who aren't falling in line with what you expect them to do. You're doing nothing more than digging yourself a deeper hole at this point, and any good will people may have had towards you, your projects, and your community will slowly fade away of this keeps going. You're an intelligent person, and very talented. But this need to be in control and be dishonest to achieve that goal is going to be your downfall, and another blemish on an already tainted legacy.

This is false. I understand that Tepache did not distribute our firmware. That's why a takedown request was sent for circumvention. The X_boxHD+ application performs authentication checks before attempting the update process. A valid GPLv2 license requires more than a mention. It requires full compliance at the time of distribution, including a clear notice and access to the complete corresponding source code or a written offer to provide it. If those requirements were not met, then no valid license was ever granted. Even if someone argues that a license might have been implied, that does not excuse copying or redistribution. The force-push was not about hiding anything. It was about correcting misinformation and removing content that was being taken out of context. I was not aware that XKUtils is from the XDK. I will remove the repo. The fork only exists to fix this issue https://github.com/M_akeMHz/xbox-hd-plus/issues/24

As a previous company director with business law qualifications (albeit UK) I can say that you cannot state said works under the GPLv2 license and then deviate from the terms within that license to 'suit yourself' as the author and publisher. You are both breaking the terms of said license and also contractually and miss-representation under business law. Nor can you state that you yourself have not met such terms and therefore 'declare' it never applied. This would simply not even reach court as any solicitor (UK) and lawyer (USA) for your representation would not submit on these grounds. Here are the authors' terms for GPLv2; GPLv2 compliance for authors focuses on ensuring users have the freedoms to use, modify, and distribute software, including source code, under the same terms as the original. This involves providing source code with binaries, clearly displaying copyright and warranty information, and adhering to specific distribution requirements. Key Aspects of GPLv2 Compliance for Authors: Source Code Availability: When distributing GPLv2-licensed software in object code or executable form, the author must also provide a copy of the corresponding source code, either alongside the binaries or through a written offer for source code. Modifications and Derivative Works: If an author modifies the software or creates a derivative work, they must make the modified software available under the same GPLv2 terms. This includes clearly indicating the modifications made and when they were applied. Copyright and Warranty Notices: Authors must ensure that all copies of the software, including modified versions, include the original copyright notice and a disclaimer of warranty. No Additional Restrictions: Authors cannot distribute GPLv2-licensed software under more restrictive terms than those specified in the license. If they distribute binaries, they must provide equivalent access to the source code. Distribution Methods: The GPLv2 allows for various distribution methods, including providing source code on the same physical medium as the binaries, or making it available online via the same distribution channel as the binaries. A written offer for source code, valid for a reasonable period (e.g., three years), is also acceptable. Avoiding Reliance on a "Build Guru": Authors should ensure the build process is well-defined and documented, so that anyone can build the software from source. Relying on a single individual with specialized knowledge for building the software can create compliance issues. In essence, GPLv2 compliance for authors is about preserving the four essential freedoms of free software: the freedom to run, study, distribute, and modify the software. By adhering to these principles, authors ensure that their contributions remain part of the open-source community and benefit others under the same open terms.

Twitter/X makes it very hard to take full page screenshots, but the full single thread can be found here. https://x.com/RichDevX/status/1941730590895571045 Using a Chrome extension I was able to capture the full thread. Originally I was unable to due to being with my family and only having access to my laptop. Please forgive the excessive whitespace as I wanted to upload image un-alternated from the output of the GoFullPage extension. Do you have list other DMCA requests? I admit that the Consolemods request was heavy hand since it was related to circumvention and not distrubution, but I'm not aware of the other notices that you seem to find fraudulent. I will update my write-up if you have better screenshots, with more context, that you can share. Force-pushing was necessary to remove files that were being misrepresented and taken out of context. This was done to correct all references throughout the git tree. The license did not change and that has already been addressed above. Again. This has already been addressed before where I went over how the source code could referenced to the samples I provided in my write up.

Ah, I see what you did there... Your original DMCA against ConsoleMods alleged distribution, not just circumvention. Yet you’re now saying: “That claim wasn’t for distribution; it was circumvention.” So which is it? Because: The Tepache article did not distribute your firmware. You’ve now conceded that distribution takedowns were sent elsewhere, but you still targeted ConsoleMods, even though there was no distribution involved. That makes your takedown knowingly false, a misuse of the DMCA. Circumvention is not covered under §512 DMCA takedowns unless it includes actual copyrighted content or violates access control mechanisms under the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions and your firmware was published under a GPLv2 label, not protected by TPMs or encrypted systems. The firmware files were at one point distributed freely as recovery XBE's, and were used with an item you willingly sold. There was no additional encryption to break through these files and it was as simple as unpacking said distributions. On top of that, GPLv2 does not prohibit modification in fact, it explicitly allows it. The only thing it requires is compliance with distribution terms, and you yourself didn’t meet them when publishing binaries without source. So again: ConsoleMods didn’t distribute your firmware. You issued a DMCA anyway. Now you're trying to reframe the takedown post-hoc as a circumvention issue. That’s not legal clarification. That’s abuse of copyright enforcement tools to silence criticism and maintain control. GPLv2 requires compliance to retain rights, but the burden of compliance is also on the distributor, not just the user. If you, as the copyright holder, offered binaries under GPLv2 without source that’s your own license violation, not the user's. So the logic of: “they weren’t compliant, so the license didn’t exist” …is invalid. You can’t grant a license, then claim it never existed because you didn’t meet your own obligations. "Nothing changed besides a single line of text" Removing the GPL statement was a material change, meant to alter the perception of licensing. You force-pushed to erase license claim after people began invoking it. Intent matters here.. If you were simply correcting a typo, there would’ve been: A clarification comment in the commit A README note A LICENSE file update But instead it was stealth removed via force push after a legal trigger, and then binaries were taken down later. "The two repos are separate" This is disingenuous. The GPL statement was in the hd-plus repo, a repo you clearly stipulated as a hub for the entire project in this reddit thread, and the binaries were hosted in the hd-plus-app repo both under your GitHub account, clearly connected by naming, intent, and linked purpose. Per the GPLv2: Distributing binaries obligates you to offer corresponding source The binary distribution happened, even if across a related repo That means the license was active and enforceable at the time “As copyright holder, I can clarify how the license applies” This is very misleading. You can clarify intent, but you cannot revoke rights already granted under GPLv2. Quoting Section 4 of GPLv2: “You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise... is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.” That includes your rights if you distribute a binary and don’t accompany it with source. That’s a GPL violation on your part, not an excuse to say others never had rights. Furthermore, you state you have no idea what XKUtils is and that is extremely hard to believe considering what you do. It was used in nearly every single homebrew during the height of Xbox modding, and is even included in a repo you forked, on your companies GitHub, of XBMC4Xbox. Which by your logic, is illegal code because it was written using the XDK. As I stated repeatedly, the multiple times this kind of activity has happened in the past, you or one of your friends had decided to be smug and use lose fitting language to try and control a narrative, or attack a project that they *also worked on* to garner brownie points and favor with you.. All if this boils down to marketing, shady use of enforcement, and trying to silence a community that's been established because they won't follow your rules.

More deceit and misleading statements from LMHz. My tweet they show was a response to this: I don't know why or how they're viewing the tweets out of order (more creative doctoring?), but my response about the threat of a lawsuit was about this forum, not about whatever they're pretending I'm talking about. Finally we agree on something, misleading people isn't right, LMHz should stop doing it, especially in the statement above. The DMCA takedowns I was referring to were against Consolemods and every other site they sent a fraudulent DMCA takedown demand regarding something they DO NOT have a copyright to. Consolemods was not the first. "To be clear, I have no legal issue with Harcroft or OX_HD as a product. My concerns are with specific individuals associated with the project. Either directly or not." Again LMHz says they don't have a legal complaint about OX_HD but they continue even on this forum today to make vague statements with literally no evidence to back them up. Nobody ever said LMHz made a legal complaint about Op_enX_HD. LMHz is using this as a straw man argument to continue to push civil complaints they know have no basis in reality. Who exactly are your concerns about? I have made it abundantly clear that it is my project and no specific individuals you refuse to elaborate on are associated with it. This is another completely duplicitous comment by LMHz. Here, today they are saying the concerns are with specific individuals associated with the project. On their blog post (still up today) they specifically claim Op_enX_HD is at attempt to clone HD+ and several other things that they know as a matter of fact are not true. By the logic of their statement everyone who's ever looked at a picture of Op_enX_HD, offered an idea, read about it in text, or heard about it in any way is "associated with it." Their argument is a logcal fallacy, it's an impossible goal post used to excuse continued harassment and deceit. This is a screenshot they are hosting as evidence that Op_enX_HD is a clone of HD+. LMHz can't have it both ways. Either they are lying and claiming it's an attempt to clone their product (which they're avoding saying now), or they are lying and saying there are concerns about people they refuse to name or mention that they know are not associated with the project. Both scenarios have the same ramifications, they are lying. "I’ll do my best to respond, but I want to keep this on the topic of the theft of our work. It’s difficult to have any kind of civil or productive conversation when false claims about us are still being pushed without actually addressing the core issues." Of course LMHz does not want to discuss their false allegations and continued lies about myself and Op_enX_HD. Avoiding those subjects would absolve them of having to either admit that they were mistaken, or willfully deceived the community. LMHz claims they posted here to clear the confusion, but they refuse to do so when it comes to their false statements about Op_enX_HD. They refuse to clear up any "confusion" about their extremely direct statement that "Public reverse engineering of Xb_oxH_D+ continues to guide its development." Again, they can't have it both ways. Either they made false and defamatory statements, or they're claiming individuals that they refuse to mention are tainting the project. The malicious, defamatory and completely false claims about Op_enX_HD and myself are a core issue. The fact that they're pretending it's not shows how they have no intention of entering this "Clearing up the confusion" conversation in good faith. As I stated in my first response, it's impossible to have civil discourse when one party is deceitful. Every single screenshot, especially the doctored/cropped images from my first post shows their clear effort to mislead everyone who looks at their blog post, as well as misleading the members of their discord server, and the XboxDev discord server. This will be my last comment on the scrubbed license as LMHz will always find another lie to try to cover the one before it. There are dozens of screenshots of LMHz going back 4 years ago saying their HD+ is open source or will be fully open sourced shortly after release. You don't do a discreet force push to clear things up, you do a proper PR with a note to show the reason for the push. One more lie in a long series. No PR info, just a line removal. That speaks for itself. LMHz still refuses to link to a single file or single line of code in PrometheOS to show any theft of VSC unlocks. Here I'll help: https://github.com/Team-Resurgent/Prome theOS-Firmware/blob/main/Prome theOSXbe/Prome theOSXbe/hddVscUnlocker.cpp https://github.com/Team-Resurgent/Prome theOS-Firmware/blob/main/Prome theOSXbe/Prome theOSXbe/hddVscUnlocker.h Show us. They can't, because what they are claiming is there, isn't there. As for victory and compromise. There is no victory. LMHz has an agenda to discredit projects and products they arbitrarily deem are tainted, especially my project which they know to be clean. They speak duplicitous and avoid the concerns that their comments are defamatory and deceitful. The damage is done, LMHz has spread false claims about myself and Op_enX_HD across the internet unchecked and refused to even engage in communication about their lies. The only compromise can be LMHz deleting any mention of myself and Op_enX_HD in the blog post, posting on every discord and social media they have lied (or were mistaken) about myself and Op_enX_HD on, that is not a clone, is not "tainted by association", and to stop the continued attacks and deceit about myself and my work. On my end I fully expect xbox7887, Ryzee119, Dtomcat, multiple of LMHz's customers who are watching the project, and anyone else LMHz considers a friend to immediately expose me for any efforts remotely close to what LMHz accuses me of doing. They have not this thus far because none of what LMHz claims I did ever happened.

I'm not sure what XKUtils is, but I'm assuming it's related to some tool for unlocking and/or creating new drives? Unlocking the drive with the EEPROM key is not what the discussion is about. It's about the logic for recovery of the HDD key over the IDE bus without the EEPROM that was stolen from Project S_tellar. That claim wasn't for distribution; it was circumvention. Distribution claims were also submitted at the same time to various website that were hosting the firmware at the time. This is covered here. The license was not removed and nothing in the repo changed besides the single line of text that was confusing to the person that reported it to us. The xbox-hd-plus and xbox-hd-plus-app are separate repositories. GPLv2 is a conditional license. Rights are only granted if its terms are followed. Section 3 states: As the copyright holder, I have the right to clarify how the license applies and any rights under the GPL depend entirely on compliance. If that compliance never existed, neither did the license. --- The idea that "it's GPL, so theft is fine" is an odd one, especially when the license doesn't even exist.

Yes I think so. I have a third party controller so I'll give it a go some time.

I want Dvd2xbox to work with my dashboard network (DHCP) setting. In the "user manual" it says you can select between "dash" "dhcp" or "static" from the dvd2xbox.xml file. The only thing that shows up for network is "IP:0.0.0.0" And if you try Settings > Network it freezes. Inside the xml it says you should leave the network settings as is if you wish dvd2xbox to make use of your dashboard network settings. Someone knows how to make this work with the dashboard settings ?

Thanks for the update. I do have a question, One issue the older versions of Xblast had was Xblast not working with 3rd party controllers. Is there anything that could be done to improve compatibilty if the user doesnt have an official Microsoft controller?

Is it an official game or homebrew?

This is devolving into the same circular what ifs, selective interpretations, and ongoing abuse of the GPL we've seen for five years all for personal gain, advertising, and marketing. "Clones" and the DMCA In your article, you mention going after clones. Fair enough. But the DMCA against ConsoleMods was false. They didn't distribute your firmware in the Tepache article. How do I know that for certain? I wrote it. Tepache was a meme, a play on the SEM tutorial already circulating. It's named after a homemade fermented pineapple drink. You do not have the right to stop anyone who purchases your hardware, from modifying your hardware. This is literally what your flagship product does, to others. Its hypocrisy. GPL Misuse You now claim the GPL label applied to the KPATCH. But.. You ignored a request for source code back in 2021: https://archive.is/UHKWH After the SEM tutorial and Tepache gained attention, you force-pushed a commit that removed all GPL markings: https://archive.is/GOZVH This conveniently fueled your supporters' shifting justifications: First it was a "typo" despite GPL text being present for years. Then, when that didn't hold up, the claim became: “no source was ever released.” Binary Licensing and GPLv2 You clearly stated on the repository that the firmware was released under GPLv2. That’s a binding grant of license including for binaries. Under GPLv2, you cannot retroactively revoke or relicense software you've already distributed. That includes binaries. Section 3 explicitly covers object code/executables, and once distributed under GPLv2, those terms cannot be undone. You didn’t pull the binaries until two months later: https://archive.is/HKBWo By removing GPL markings, deleting binaries after the fact, and refusing source code requests, you're in clear violation of the GPL both in letter and in spirit. You didn’t clarify, you didn’t correct, and you didn’t comply. You only claimed it was a "typo" once someone actually tried to exercise the rights you granted. You also keep saying nobody is addressing you, Team Resurgent addressed you clear as day in their answer. The used GPL code, they added the license to said GPL code. As for the unlocking stuff (I'm not a representative of TR, and was asked to not speak on this further so I wont continue down that rabbit hole again) that same function can be found in XKUtils from the early 2000's so again, you're trying to claim ownership of shared functions for a shared purpose that will likely have similar assembly when used.

Both releases are closed source. That is Project S_tellar and the PrometheOS build in question; which would also include the later source code releases of a different version. But the disassembled code speaks for itself. That trying to say the exact same random delay lengths, in the exact same pattern, in the same functions, etc is absurd. Every part of that is random and unique to S_tellar, but it's appears exactly the same in the PrometheOS build. The blog post is long, but it's worth a read all the way through. It outlines everything and tries to leave no doubt on how we got here. Cerbios is just closed source. But the same PrometheOS logic applies. --- And none of the developers are addressing it. We just want what was stolen from us removed. We're making progress though. We've gone from Cerbios and PremetheOS "hasn't taken anything from M_akeMHz" to at least partial accountability with PrometheOS. Even if this still breaks the license and does not attribute what was taken; it's still the right step. But again, I'm not here to argue the finer points of open source licensing when closed source works are not accounted for.

Hi OGXbox Admin, If it’s okay, I’d really like to say a few words as a neutral bystander and as a member of this awesome community. I completely understand if this post isn’t allowed or doesn’t get approved by the OGXbox admin. I really do. It’s just something that’s been on my mind for the past few days, and I felt the need to say it. Not to add fuel to any fire, but simply because I care about this community and what it stands for. I’m not here to stir the pot or take sides just to share some thoughts from the heart, if that’s allowed. I’ve been part of this forum and the OG Xbox scene for quite a while now, and it’s always been a place where people come together to share knowledge, build cool things, and help each other out. It’s something I’ve really valued. That’s why it’s honestly sad to see how much division there is right now. Discussions and differences are normal even healthy but it feels like we’re being pulled apart instead of working things out. I don’t know all the facts and I’m not pretending to. But I truly hope we can shift the focus back to what really matters: our shared love for the xbox, collaboration, and mutual respect. Let’s not tear each other down let’s build something great together. This community has so much potential, and it would be a shame to lose that over conflict and misunderstandings. I still believe in what this scene stands for. Hopefully, we can all find common ground again. Thanks for letting me speak. Thanks either way for taking the time to read this. Admiralehab

As of right now the big questions I still have are those I don't think I'll be able to get answers to. Why? It would require exposing the very code in question in order to prove who created it. I DO NOT WANT THIS CODE. I don't want to be on the suspect list of a potential leak. Don't give it to me. Not that anyone would, but I just want to make that clear. If someone could figure out how to prove whether the above is true or not, it would end the entire thing... and that's what we should be looking for. It might be fun for everyone to be at each other's throats, but I've been following this for what? 2 days. I'm tired boss. lol I wish I had shut this site down years ago. These are the specific points I would need someone to provide proof of so I could gain any clarity. It seems the entire debate hinges here. Given the unlikely nature of anyone giving this up, I'm afraid I've arrived at the same stalemate everyone else has. I apologize if I've wasted time. I was overconfident in my ability to get to the bottom of things. All along I've wondered why everyone is so confident in their position. LMHz is confident his code was stolen. The people he has accused are confident in their positions based on their rebuttals. I have been unable to wrap my head around everyone being so confident in their position. Usually people consider all the negative ramifications of conflicts such as this EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT. That just doesn't seem to be happening here. Everyone believes they are the victim and nobody admits to any fault. Usually everyone has a little bit of fault even if they are mostly victims. Edit: I forgot to finish my thought in the final sentance: Which is why people COMPROMISE.

thanks in advance for any help

Hey everyone, I’ve been diving into some classic OG Xbox games, and I came across FreeCell Solitaire. I know it’s a simple game, but I’m curious, why is it still such a popular choice on the console? Is there something about the OG Xbox version that makes it stand out compared to playing it on a PC or other platforms? Also, does anyone have tips for making the most out of the experience or any memories of playing it on the OG Xbox? Would love to hear your thoughts on this old-school gem!

@OGXbox Admin right now I'm focused on what's in my write-up as it highlights the more important parts. It's a lot of information and I don't believe I can copy and paste it all here. There's a couple of questions you have though that are not covered in the write up though. I'll answers those really quick. X_boxHD+ Runtime This is software from X_boxHD+. Released around the begining of 2020. It's about 4,700 lines of code, but obviously a lot less once compiled. The work was copied to Cerbios and first appeared in the v2.3.2 release on December 31st 2023. It appears to represent the full work. This would also include PrometheOS as it uses the Cerbios BIOS in it's releases. HDD Unlocking This is software from Project S_tellar. Released on December 29, 2023. It's about 1,000 lines of code, but obviously a lot less once compiled. The work was copied to PrometheOS and first appeared in PrometheOS V1.2.0 on February 25, 2024. It appears to represent the full work. CPU Upgrade Support I'm cautious to go into the full details here as it seems Cerbios does not fully understand how this works and it appears only the core of it has been copied and made available. The sample I studied is the v2.4.2, but it could apply to previous releases either via Cerbios directly or PrometheOS. Everything else in the article is provide for context. I started researching this a week before the article was published. I've heard rumors that the X_boxHD+ and Steller were being reverse engineered, but never looked into it until then. This was after the constant claim that I was fabricating that these "projects are based on the stolen work of others". --- At some point, the authors of the stolen work need to respond. Ultimately, it’s up to them to refute the evidence that’s been presented.

Legend

@LoveMHz Ok. Thank you for that clarification. Could you please detail with as much specificity as possible exactly what software you're alleging has been copied or parts of it have been copied? If I can narrow that down to a file or two (I don't need filename per se but just something that distinguishes it would suffice.) I could start to make sense of what is at issue. What I need is: Product name / Creation date of said code / software or firmware? (choose one) / entire code or partial code? (choose one) / How many lines are in the original work? / How many lines do we believe were copied? / To where was it copied? (Name of alleged "product" that contains alleged unauthorized code use.) / when this copy was done or when you discovered it. I am trying to piece this all together.

I’ll do my best to respond, but I want to keep this on the topic of the theft of our work. It’s difficult to have any kind of civil or productive conversation when false claims about us are still being pushed without actually addressing the core issues. To be clear, I have no legal issue with Harcroft or O_XHD as a product. My concerns are with specific individuals associated with the project. Either directly or not. --- As for the GitHub repository that was linked. Yes, that is correct. This part of the project is shared as CERN OHL. The kpatch firmware source was shared under GPLv2, and it still is. That hasn't changed. --- At one point, someone mentioned that the sentence "Firmware is shared under GPLv2." was unclear. It was removed for clarity, not to retroactively change the license. For further context: the GitHub repo never included the on-device firmware for X_boxHDMI or X_boxHD+, in either source or binary form. --- Regarding open source: My long-term goal has always been to open source all of my projects, including S_tellar. And despite everything, that’s still the plan. But saying “I do not expect LMHz to open source anything” ignores the fact that every major release of Project S_tellar has included meaningful open source contributions to the community. I’ll fully admit and apologize for the delay in making more of the work public. But what I’m asking for is some perspective. From the beginning, there have been bad actors who think it’s okay to take our work without permission. That makes it much harder to confidently move forward with releasing more. Respect for open source also requires respect for closed source. Without that baseline, open collaboration becomes significantly harder.

@LoveMHz Do you dispute the validity of the github link above? Help me understand your position better please.

What I want and what would be fair are in two entirely different reams. LMHz absolutely owes an apology for every single comment they made that they knew to be false. LMHz absolutely should delete every reference to myself, Skye and Eaton on their blog post. LMHz absolutely should post a retraction and apology regarding myself, Skye and Eaton on their blog. I expect and honestly have no want for any of these things. LMHz made their choices and they can live with them. I also do not expect LMHz to open source anything for their modchip when they have already deceitfully released a product (HD+) as OS, scrubbed the license discreetly to try to revoke it https://github.com/MosesofEgypt/xbox-hd-plus The original license can be seen here. I posted that screenshot as another data point in the pattern of deceit I detailed in my first response, not to get them to behave differently.

After reading your entire post AND reading LMHZ comments regarding your project on this forum, it seems as though he is agreeing with you now. It seems in the past damage may have been done between you two, but from what I can tell right now, nobody disputes your work on OXHD being original. If I'm wrong then so be it but I don't see anything other than old things you provided. At this moment in time, I think your work regarding OXHD is unquestioned in its uniqueness and validity. As far as the screenshot you provided that said "everything would be open source at some point." I found that most interesting and thought about it for a long time. Then I did some research. Do you believe you or anyone else was deceived into collaborating with LMHZ at that time into providing work you believed would be open source, only to have it be closed source, used for an official product, and the contributor uncredited? If yes, that screenshot and said collaboration can be proven it has a LOT of merit. If no, it has none. Here's why: It doesn't give a firm commitment nor does it give a timeline. Everyone has the right to change their mind. If he were to wait until he was on his deathbed to make it open source, he has complied with that non-binding statement in his post. It just has no teeth unless someone can make the argument that their work was used for profit without their permission due to deceptive practices. It seems you want a public apology from LMHZ. I think if everything you say is true then that would be reasonable... however. Calling someone a liar repeatedly publicly won't help that. Few people in the world would do that. It could be seen as discrediting his other claims as though he could be wrong on them as well. (I would disagree. I think it would actually strengthen those claims because if you're willing to admit you're wrong when faced with proof, then when you won't admit you're wrong it is strong evidence that you are not wrong.) Extremely few people publicly apologize and admit they made a mistake.

I do not feel for a moment that you are attacking me. You may have seen my sympathetic response for your original lockdown post. I respect the extremely difficult position you are in. You didn't choose for clone devices to be posted on your site, you didn't choose for a user to issue you legal threats in order to control what speech is allowed. Rest assured though, if you are under the thumb of a single user based on legal threats like this, that will be the death knell for the forum. Controlling speech leads directly to controlling thought. The message is clear. The only Xbox HDMI talk allowed to be talked or thought about in the entire retro community is about a product by LMHz. I am not here to play for a mock trial. I am here to offer screenshots and links to facts. I have done that. I have displayed a clear pattern of deceit by LMHz. LMHz keeps posting vague accusations without any evidence. Believe them if you want. My experience tells me to not believe a single word they type. If you feel my post isn't safe to host on your site, you have every reason and right to delete it and I respect that. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to show the pattern of attacks, deceit and libel.