>I sent patches on the hopes to get feedback

They did not say that they were hoping for feedback on their tool when they submitted the patch, they lied about their code doing something it does not.

>How does that fit in with your explanation?

It fits in the narrative of doing hypocritical changes to the project.

But lashing out when confronted after the fact? (I can't figure out how to browse to the messages that contain said purported 'slander' - maybe it is indeed terrible slander). Normally after the show is over one stops with the performance...

edit: oh, ok I guess that post with the accusations was mid-performance? Not inconsistent, so, maybe (I'm still not clear what the timeline is).

From GKH's response, which you linked:

    They obviously were _NOT_ created by a static analysis tool that is of
    any intelligence, as they all are the result of totally different
    patterns, and all of which are obviously not even fixing anything at
    all.  So what am I supposed to think here, other than that you and your
    group are continuing to experiment on the kernel community developers by
    sending such nonsense patches?

    When submitting patches created by a tool, everyone who does so submits
    them with wording like "found by tool XXX, we are not sure if this is
    correct or not, please advise." which is NOT what you did here at all.
    You were not asking for help, you were claiming that these were
    legitimate fixes, which you KNEW to be incorrect.

> (3). We send the incorrect minor patches to the Linux community through email to seek their feedback.

Sounds like they knew exactly what they were doing.

It’s a lie, that’s how it fits.