First of all, I really appreciate the effort you guys put into pdaXrom - both the core developers and the people who contribute to this forum.
However
if the pdaXrom stuff is wholly GPL then:
I think all that he did was... grab the beta3 images installed it... hacked the crap out of it... installed A LOT of apps and re labeled it... created a NAND backup and sells it... I've seen adverts on a few blogs... EBAY AUCTIONS!.. and as you know this page for the company...
One could argue that this is by and large what Redhat (and friends) do. They take GPL stuff, polish it, package it up, put together some documentation, maybe throw in some support and sell[1] the result. Of course Redhat (and friends) does development and bug fixes as well and contributes them back upstream.
My whole "fit" is because not even 1 person from pdaXrom was asked or even notified was was going on... I mean I'm not going to allow a product of my and the rest of the teams effort be sold...
I don't think GPL stipulates that upstream needs to be notified of any intention to (re)distribute. However I agree that it would have been courteous to have notified the pdaXrom developers about such intentions.
and yes he is conflicting with GPL
Could you clarify which part of the GPL you believe is being violated?
[1]In practical terms they're actually selling support. There are a number of entities who take the Redhat stuff, strip out all Redhat trademarks/logos etc, then rebrand & repackage for (re)distribution. This is all perfectly legal and within the scope of the GPL. However users of these (re)distributions are obviously not qualified to receive Redhat support!