/tech/ - Technology★

Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.

Raul Miller rauldmiller at gmail.com

Mon Dec 24 16:02:08 UTC 2018

Previous message (by thread): Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.

Next message (by thread): Reason for RedHat purchase 30 pct over market cap

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

(1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists.

(2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made,

because of (1))...

(3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making

these mistakes.

Thanks,

--

Raul

On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM <visionsofalice at redchan.it> wrote:

>

> Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours

> after it was published:

>

Notice they never successfully refute the argument that with Linux the GPLv2 is a bare license, with no attached interest to bind the grantor, that is freely revocable by the grantor thusly.

That is the black-letter law.

They just say "nu uh, you wrong, and I'll not LOWER myself to explain, mysoginist mmmaaallleee scum"

I'm not wrong.

There is not even an affirmative state-law defense of reliance since there was no promise not to revoke (not that that is a sure defense, absent a payment for such a forbearance or a reasonable reliance on such a promise)

There is nothing to bind the grantor.

Nothing.

And yet they keep saying "nu uh, you're wrong, and not a lawyer, and should be locked up for practicing law without a license"

Message Body

Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>:

The anonymous person is generally thought to have appeared on the net

previously as MikeeUSA. That entity has a well-recorded history of misogyny

and other anti-social behaviour. He's also complained to me recently that

because of "people like me", the law prohibits him from marrying very young

women. I mean single-digit young. Although he is not at all meritorious of

your civil behavior, you may not wish to lower yourself to his level.

I strongly doubt it. I've had my own run-in with MikeeUSA; I remember

it vividly and unpleasantly. The prose style doesn't match. MikeeUSA

could barely maintain coherent communication; this guy is using

language that indicates he's at least several degrees brighter.

--

Eric S. Raymond

My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org

Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.

Subject:

2 months and no response from Eben Moglen - Yes you can rescind your grant.

It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research.

Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor.

The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential: copyright transfers to a central repository entity that is sure not to rescind.

Linus chose not to adopt this regime.

He benefited by greatly increased developer contribution.

The price for that windfall was and is the retention of their traditional property rights by the property holders.

They can rescind at will.

They made no promise nor utterance to the contrary that can be relied upon.

They were paid no consideration.

There was no meeting of the minds.

Additionally the CoC regime itself is a license terms violation, being an additional restrictive term, as explained in the other analysis. (Similar to the GRSecurity license violation)

On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote:

> On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofalice@redchan.it wrote:

>

> You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and

> non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would likely

> be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction.

>

> I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and

> for you then to tell me what is wrong with it. What you say here

> sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't. I have been teaching

> this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing

> anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake.

>

> The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the will

> of the grantor.

>

> That's not actually "the rule." It sounds like it might be the rule,

> but it so happens that it's not. When I have given the explanation as

> I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me

> what I am wrong about.

>

> Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point,

> vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses.

>

> You have your Nimmers confused. The primary author of the treatise

> Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority)

> was Melville Nimmer. The treatise is continued by his son, David, a

> fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about

> something. Ray Nimmer is quite another person.

>

> Eben

Hendrik Boom wrote:

>

>Actually, no. It has no effect on what you can do with your copy of

>the Linux kernel. It just restricts your ability to participate fully

>in its development. But you can continue to use, modify, and

>distribute your copies as much as before, as provided by the license.

>

>-- hendrik

Subject:

The CoC regime is a License violation - Additional restrictive terms

Version 2 of the GPL forbids the incorporation of additional

restrictive terms, relating to the distribution, modification, etc of

the article licensed under the terms.

Those that violate this section are declared, by operation of the

terms, to have their grant automatically revoked.

An additional term need-not be present in the same writing. Such terms

simply need to be present to or made known to the taker(sub-licensee) by

the distributor. They may be proffered in writing, orally, or

implied in the course of doing business dealings. They simply must

relate back or involve the article in question (the licensed code or

product.)

The proffering of additional restrictive terms is a violation of the

text of the license grant in and of itself.

Here we have a situation where an additional writing has been

proffered. The additional writing promises both in it's own text and

by implication consequences against those who violate the terms of

this additional writing.

The additional writing restricts those subject to it from expressing

certain views publicly - promising retribution against those who do.

No consideration is paid to those subject to the additional writing

for their assent; it is simply imposed unilaterally against the

subjects.

The violators of the additional writing are promised:

Additional, unwanted, public scrutiny (to which they were not subject

to prior)

Public ridicule.

Loss of public standing.

as-well as an implied loss of future income.

These are the enforcement mechanisms of the additional writing to

enforce its restrictions against those who publish derivative works of

the kernel.

The additional writing is activated when (with the prerequisite of

being a derivative work of the linux kernel) the work of a rights-holder

is incorporated into the kernel, when such a work is made known to the

kernel-team to exist where any one person on this earth has seen fit

to present it for inclusion, or by simple prior-inclusion into the

kernel.

Thus all current and past rights-holders who have code in, or have

published for distribution, derivative works of the kernel are subject

to the retributive promises made to them in the additional writing,

drafted to restrict their actions and utterances.

This is tantamount to an additional restrictive term regarding the

modification and distribution of works under the linux kernel license

grant.

It is a violation of the license terms of the rights-holders past

incorporated works in much the same way that GRSecurity's

Contributor Access Agreement was and is.

Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours after it was published:

Yes they can, greg.

The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks consideration between the licensee and the grantor.

(IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in fact, gain no bargained-for benefit)

As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules regarding the alienation of property apply.

Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor.

The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming your right to rescind the license.

Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one of them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to say that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt at the least)).

The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause 4 of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause.

However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses their permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that case the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission under the terms.

Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's public service announcement chooses to ignore.

Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public and the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not impinge the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The impinged property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be taken back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so.

Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, and instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a Copyright License.

The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to:

1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - opensource is great")

2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not Contract)

3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2

4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions.

(Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much more consistent in it's rulings?)

5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc.

Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck of happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those who support women.

(This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female children as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their will.... who are not idolators of Women)

Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is...

They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. They CANNOT hold YOU.

You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from any future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are done harm.

Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into thinking otherwise.

And, yes, I am a lawyer.

And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside counsel to analyze the fact pattern. (And even then all they could come up with was statements using weasel words "may" etc: not even wanting to commit to their clearly-disingenuous publication)

(Note: If you would like to read a nice discussion on the topic, here is one http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf )

On 2018-10-25 08:19, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@redchan.it wrote:

>> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.

>

> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.

>

> greg k-h

On 2018-10-29 22:31, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 07:56:26AM +0000, visionsofalice@redchan.it wrote:

>> The linux devs can rescind their license grant.

> Greg KH responded on Thu, 25 Oct 2018 09:19:11 +0100:

>>> No they can not, please do not keep spreading false information.

>

> I was explicitly cc'ed on this thread by visionsofalice. I've read the

> whole thread, and the only useful thing I can contribute here is to agree

> with Greg and additionally provide some backup research on the point:

> https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/

>

> Software Freedom Conservancy engaged our legal counsel to write a new

> section for the Copyleft Guide that further explains the irrevocability of

> GPLv2. We published this when others raised these specious claims back in

> September. Direct link to new section:

> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4

>

>

> HTH,

Why is there silence now or just "nuh uh, you're wrong, because... reasons... "

Did the 5 devs who were looking into this do anything?

Why does no one here give a shit about this anymore?

Are you convinced "na they can't do it".

Because you are wrong.

I am a lawyer, and I can tell you that they can rescind.

You are believing the bullshit from other faggot programmers like yourself who think you know everything there is to know in life "becus I kno C!".

Guess what. I kno C too.

And the law, because I'm a licensed attorney.

A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.

You FUCKING retards.

What were the gratis programmers of much of the core of linux paid?

The various 1000s of copyright holders.

And did they ever say they would observe a forbearance regarding their rights under the law?

Did they?

Nope, you FUCKING retards.

Yet you think the case is settled because Eben Moglen said "nuh uh, and I will tell you why.... some day....." or some fucking know-nothing programmers said "SUUURELY NUUHH UHHHH"

>>1013409 (OP)

It's like this entire thread was made by Terry.

> (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made,

> because of (1))...

I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*.

A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.

This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD license(s).

The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests

are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis (paying) customers

may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current versions they have

in their posession, paid for by good consideration.

Everyone else has NOTHING.

Do you understand that?

In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no consideration

was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the programmers),

who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there is

NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT

TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE REGARDING

YOUR WORK.

One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of them

were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either.

*(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type)

>On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote:

>as a lawyer

oy vey better stop using free software then

>>1013452

>It's like this entire thread was made by Terry.

Why is no one discussing this anymore.

It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from programmers.

Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by virtue of being "smarts"?

Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )

Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong.

Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing.

It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades said: he's full of shit.

Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken.

The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one of them could shake the tree.

>>1013456

You stupid fuck.

The issue is that some WOMEN and their friends(*) have decided to issue a CoC to threaten the M_E_N who wrote the software and eject them from THEIR projects.

I have shown the men that they have an LEGAL AVENUE to fight back. TO FUCK those FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT WOMYN**.

(**who all oppose men taking female children as brides; and thus are heretics who oppose YHWH's law and thus perhaps should be burned to ash)

(*rather large entities who wish to have governance over the linux ecosystem)

By rescission of the license grant.

>>1013458

While you are completely right, the problem is that this isn't the LKML, this is /tech/. Nobody here hacks on the kernel beyond personal tinkering, or if they do they aren't willing to break their anonymity and get canned and hate-mobbed for wrong think. Hell most of these niggers don't even write real software and only do stupid maths toys if even that.

I'm fairly confident you are preaching to the choir who has simply given up and jumped ship to openbsd or is hacking on their own kernels. As much as I hate that fucking blackpill anon's bullshit he isn't that far off about the current state of things being fubar and in desperate need of either a fork or a complete rebuild.

I pray that you can get some of the kernel devs to stop being spineless fucking beta cucks and actually stand up for themselves, but you won't accomplish this goal here sadly.

>>1013459

Post it to /g/, some triggered trans twitter activist will signal boost it.

>>1013459

More hands-on-deck would be useful.

Many devs might be angry but think they do not have any legal recourse.

I send to the LKML:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/27/221

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/27/219

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/27/214

But how many devs read it in the deluge?

Secondly even if there are devs who are exploring options, neither we nor anyone else will hear about it as they'll be told to shut-up.

(If you tip your hand, an adversary can drag you into court prematurely seeking a declaratory judgement: you don't want this as guess what circuit you'll end up in (read: 9th) most likely. For this suit you want a circuit that follows precedent because you are relying on black-letter law, while the 9th loves to violate black-letter law and introduce irony and comedy into the proceedings)

I can supply the legal reasoning, I can post to the lkml and other mailing lists, but beyond that I don't know how to reach out.

If you and others can do so please do.

This issue is not settled, but the enemy pretends that it is.

>>1013460

Would you do the grace of a middle click... and then a second middle click

(or a ctrl-c and v ...)

g does not allow Tor.

I always use Tor.

You can't rescind the GPLv2.

>but where is your proooof

where is yours?

>muh bare license

lol. bunch of LARPers. kys

>>1013457

Wasn't there some fag that debunked this whole thing?

>>1013458

> muh ebil wymen

Cringe.

>>1013478

Neck yourself leftykike.

>>1013467

Rescinding the license on an existing public work is like telling people to unsmell your fresh bread or unsee the painting. The idea is complete nonsense. Once it is out there, you cannot change the existing works. The only thing you can change is future releases of those works. When that happens, those works become existing works and those cannot be changed as well.

>Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )

jesus christ, kill yourself mikeeusa

>>1013488

The right-holders did not grant their work to the public.

They simply licensed their proprietary interest in a very liberal fashion.

Those who paid good consideration for access to the work may be protected by consumer protection laws, first sale doctrine, as-well as implied terms. Those who did not have no interest to bind the property owner with. He may rescind.

> The only thing you can change is future releases of those works.

At-least you acquiesce to that. That the right-holders can bar the use of their code in any future versions of linux etc; they did not transfer their rights, they did not promise not to utilize their rights, and they were paid no consideration for such non-existent promises.

>>1013489

>jesus christ, kill yourself mikeeusa

Why would I do that?

All my days I do my hobbies: programming video-games, building medieval architecture for said games, building modern architecture for said games, recording music, and enlightening the ignorant on such topics as US law and some aspects of the law of YHWH.

Where do you think I got the time to go to law school?

While you dutifully attend your master at your place of immurement, I do as I wish.

Why would I kill myself? Why would it be me and not you? You have far less of your own life granted to you.

>>1013488

Your terminology is poor, a Public Work is a work in the public domain, which no part of Linux is. But we took you to mean a work that has been licensed to members of the public in a general way (like commercial software), and worked from there.

If you truly ment Public Work, than you are a fool.

Another possibility is that you imagined Linux to be something like a piece of art installed in a public place. Linux is not this, suffice to say, and even in such a case the copyright and trademark owners do not suffer a degradation of their rights: which is why a photograph of the John Hancock building, if exploited for commercial gain, brings the IP holders knocking.

>>1013478

>Wasn't there some fag that debunked this whole thing?

Nope. The best you got was

"We hope they don't do this" --RMS

"I'll get back to you but you're wrong!" --Eben Moglen (It's been 2 months, his promised exposee' has not been forthcoming)

"NOOO THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENCE YOU SHOULD BE JAILED FOR PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE!" --Steve Litt (IIRC)

The black letter law is:

A property owner can rescind a license at his will.

The black letter law exceptions to this rule are:

When an interest is attached: That is when the licensee has paid the property owner to forego that right to rescind.

This payment can be in money, in kind, by way of labor, etc.

Have you payed programmer 2035 anything, with his acceptance a knowing assent to this no-revocation codicil between him and you?

What about programmer 3072, who works on the netfilter code?

Programmer 5, Alan Cox, did you pay him?

What about Programmer 0, linus, any consideration thrown his way (and accepted by him) regarding this agreement between him and you?

??

Did you?

They did not make Linux a Public Work. Each piece is the property of the copyright owner, and they did not assign their copyrights over (something the FSF demands for this reason).

You notice the silence from RMS, Eben, etc etc, All they can say is No!, but they never successfully refute the law. Why is that...

>ITT MikeeUSA talking to himself

lmao

If you think that rescinding the GPLv2 is possible why don't you do it :^)

LMAO

I couldn't help much but god speed to you and whatever you do there, I'll just sit here beside my comfy netbsd desktop until microsoft engulf the entire linux kernel, it's one in a life time chance to see this kind of fireworks.

> Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.

So where my logic cannot be attacked, my person may be instead?

Do you think me a fool, simply because you do not know what you do not know (the law), yet think you do (an attribute of many programmers: know one field, know them all!)?

I've explained the law again and again.

But here it goes:

Under the copyright statute, copyrighted works are alienable in all the ways property is.

You can sell, transfer, and license etc.

Copyright comes into existence the moment your work is placed in a fix form. The copyright is owned by the progenitor (you the programmer) until such time as you transfer it (ex: to an employee by way of employment agreement stating such terms), or you die (now your descendants own the rights), or you or your descendants elect to use the "claw-back" provisions in the US copyright act some decades after the work was fixed.

You, both BSD programmers, and Linux kernel programmers have elected to neither sell nor transfer in other ways your copyrights.

Instead you have chosen to license your works.

A license is a temporary grant.

Under property law it can be rescinded when the property owner wishes to do so.

Unless, the property owner has been payed to forgo that right.

That is: if the property owner has been payed by the licensee to promise that he will not rescind the license,

then if the property owner elects to rescind the license the court may estop the property owner from doing so

because the licensee has payed the owner FOR that right.

Equivalent exchange, if you will. (But the court does not look to if the consideration was... equivalent, just that there was an exchange of some consideration (read: money, goods, services) and a meeting of the minds (both parties ment to do this))

In the case of most linux and BSD licensees nothing has been payed by them to the programmers(you the copyright holders) to induce a forbearance of the underlying rights of the property owners.

Thus the original default rights still stand.

You can rescind at will.

Additionally, you have never promised that you would forego the utilization of your property rights,

so there is no promise anyone could reasonably rely upon to estop you from utilizing said rights.

Additionally, Licensee "E" did not pay you for that non-existent promise either.

You are not bound. You may rescind.

You now know why the FSF requires programmers to assign all copyrights to it.

You now know why Eben Moglen remains silent these last two months. I am correct, yes I am a lawyer, and yes anything he speaks further would simply show the weaknesses in his (magnanimously) taken position in trying to fool the Programmers into thinking they have forfeited rights they have not.

On 2018-12-27 21:53, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:

> On 27/12/2018 21:30, vsnsdualce@memeware.net wrote:

>

> Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.

>

>> Why is no one discussing this anymore.

>

> You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with

> claims without any reproducible proof.

> And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be

> techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if

> it goes in the other direction.

>

>> It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from

>

> "Proof by claim"? I don't think so ....

>

>> Are you idiots [...]

>>

>> Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...]

>>

>> Are you idiots [...]

>

> Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for

> (alleged) lawyers in your part of the world.

>

> MfG,

> Bernd

>

> PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam

> after all ...

I don't think this email address is readable by the sender, his argument is that I'm not a lawyer.

The problem with his argument is that I am a license attorney, and he is wrong on that point.

Now, he may have seen and ignored other lawyers on the LKML pleading with them for more discipline in their legal practice, but dismissed them as "not lawyers" aswell...

---------------------

A lawyer?!

From fuck@fuckyou.net

Date Tue 12:50

Message Body

Hahahahahaha! You ain't no lawyer, buddy -- you're a clueless halfwit, the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux. The Libertarian/Men's Rights morons who circle jerk themselves to no end over on r/TheDonald. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never.

I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.

Your initial argument, as I imagine you ment to communicate (a single negation, rather than the double negation you proffered) hits a snag:

I am a licensed attorney.

>"You ain't no lawyer, buddy"

Your double negatives speak the truth: I am a licensed attorney.

>"you're a clueless halfwit"

I'm sure my intellect is half that of someone somewhere.

>"clueless"

Incorrect, I have informed you of the law, and my analysis is correct.

>the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux

Many lawyers perhaps begged the linux copyright holders to stop playing fast and loose with the law and their licensing regime.

Their advice, of-course, was rejected, and their patches rejected by linus. One attempted patch (the GPLv3) very publicly so.

> I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never.

I notice that the nobles of europe, those that were not murdered, are still in the possession of their inherited lands, while you americans are poor as you constantly divide you wealth in your quest to be "real men".

(You also murder anyone who likes cute young girls, in that same quest).

> I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.

I'm quite tall already.

Enjoy your wage slave life though :)

While you were slaving away, being a MhrrAhhN I attended law school, graduated, acquired my license, studied more, programmed videogames, studied more, built 3d architecture, studied more, did RL architecture, studied more, etc.

And had parties every other week with my friends. While you pursued the goals of a real man.

On 2018-12-25 12:50, fuck@fuckyou.net wrote:

> Hahahahahaha! You ain't no lawyer, buddy -- you're a clueless

> halfwit, the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years

> with Linux. The Libertarian/Men's Rights morons who circle jerk

> themselves to no end over on r/TheDonald. I'd ask when you're

> planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already

> know the answer to that: never.

>

> I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.

Linux programmer attacks the messaging server, cannot attack the message:

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

Contact photo

From Theodore Y. Ts'o

Date Today 13:57

Message Body

+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.

| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:

| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:

| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='

| Thank you, | ( (_) )

| Management | /`-vvv-'\

+-------------------+ / \

| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \

| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\

@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW

\||||/ | | \| \,,\ /,,/

\||/ | | | (__Y__)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

==============================================================

I recommend that people not respond to vsnsdualce@memeware.net,

visionsofalice@redchan.it, and in general, any e-mail coming from

domains served by the cock.li service (which comes from the IP address

185.100.85.212). As you can tell if you go to its web page, this

mailer serves the following domains:

cock.li, airmail.cc, 8chan.co, redchan.it, 420blaze.it,

aaathats3as.com, cumallover.me, dicksinhisan.us,

loves.dicksinhisan.us, wants.dicksinhisan.us, dicksinmyan.us,

loves.dicksinmyan.us, wants.dicksinmyan.us, goat.si, horsefucker.org,

national.shitposting.agency, nigge.rs, tfwno.gf, cock.lu, cock.email,

firemail.cc, getbackinthe.kitchen, memeware.net, cocaine.ninja,

waifu.club, rape.lol, and nuke.africa

This has been a public service announcement.

"Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig

likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Lieutenant Ts'o:

I see that you have adopted the strategy of "Attack the messaging service, not the message".

You cannot refute my arguments, you and yours simply claim "it's a lie", "it's BS!", "it's a troll".

The fact of the matter is: a license without an interest attached is revocable by the grantor.

That is: if you have not been paid to forgo your right to rescind, you still retain that right.

In the case of Linux or BSD: if entity X did not pay you, and did not reasonably rely on a promise not to rescind

(a promise you never made), you can rescind the license at any time.

This goes for all the 1000s of linux and BSD programmers who have not transferred their rights.

Yes I am a licensed attorney.

Yes my analysis is correct.

And yes I'm still waiting on Eben Moglen's promised counter-analysis (it's been 2 months)...

take a guess as to why.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/28/312

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/28/301

1. BO being a giant faggot has driven all the people who may have been interested in discussing this years ago

2. Stop being such an obvious reddit faggot

3. Get a rope and hang yourself

>>1013767

I started the discussion years ago.

>>1013746

>If you think that rescinding the GPLv2 is possible why don't you do it :^)

What a stupid thing to say...

Because I am not a linux-kernel license holder.

I am, however, a lawyer.

And I am trying to inform those who do hold copyright to parts of linux as to their rights.

Idiots like yourself, however, like to scream HUURR DUURRR ITS WRONG U NO LAURER!!! U HAVE IDEAS I DON'T LIKE THUS CANT BE LAUUURRRR

Fuck You.

>>1013746

>If you think that rescinding the GPLv2 is possible why don't you do it :^)

You do realize that a license pertains to the licensed article, do you not?

Do you imagine that the goal is to "blanket rescind all licenses using the GPLv2 verbiage"? Is that it? Are you that stupid a lay person?

The guy who owns the property grants the license. Understand?

He can rescind that license whenever he wishes, unless you pay him not to, or he promises not to and you reasonably rely on that promise.

(did you pay for that promise? is it reasonable for you to rely on?).

Did each of the linux programmers make such a promise to you?

No they did not.

Did you pay each of the linux programmers anything.

No you did not.

They can rescind the license from you.

Understand?

A license is a temporary grant, it is not a transfer.

>>1013767

>1. BO being a giant faggot has driven all the people who may have been interested in discussing this years ago

A discussion I started years ago. People like you just can't get over the fact that they are not lawyers, while I am. You do not like that a person who wishes for all men to have the right to marry cute young girls (female children) is a lawyer, while you are a wage slave.

>2. Stop being such an obvious reddit faggot

?

>3. Get a rope and hang yourself

Why? Why would I do that?

I guess you simply have no legal arguments.

>>1013459

Could you inform lulz.com and other sites that Eben Moglen's promised refutation article has not materialized and he hasn't made a peep in the last 2 months?

That a license absent an attached interest is, indeed, revocable at the will of the grantor.

That Eben and other Free Software paragons are trying to blow smoke up the rights-holders asses

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.

From R0b0t1

To gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org

Cc ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

, debian-user@lists.debian.org, dng@lists.dyne.org

Reply-To gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org

Date Thu 20:39

This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here

from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward

or follow up on the information as you see fit.

The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he

seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their

grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have

no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me

work for free.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM <vsnsdualce@memeware.net> wrote:

>

> > (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made,

> > because of (1))...

>

> I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*.

>

> A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.

>

> This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD

> license(s).

> The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests

> are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis

> (paying) customers

> may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current

> versions they have

> in their posession, paid for by good consideration.

>

<offtopic>

There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway):

I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS

licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United

States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for

a particular purpose.

Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it

and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even

if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the

fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you

could have given consideration even though you did not pay money.

</offtopic>

> Everyone else has NOTHING.

> Do you understand that?

>

I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop

distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose,

but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it

you already have.

Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this?

Cheers,

R0b0t1

Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.

From R0b0t1

To gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org

Cc ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

, debian-user@lists.debian.org, dng@lists.dyne.org

Reply-To gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org

Date Thu 20:42

Contact photo

Message Body

Apologize for the follow up:

Not being able to rescind the license is like saying someone who was

lent a lawnmower gets to keep it indefinitely with no contest because

the person who lent it can't rescind the grant to the lawnmower.

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:39 PM R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com> wrote:

MikeeUSA is a total trainwreck.

>hurr I'm a lawyer

lmao. prove it, faggot.

Protip: you're a LARPer

>>1013801

>lmao. prove it, faggot.

I have, if you were studied you would know that.

>>1013806

>LARPing

I know that you are a LARPer. But you haven't actually proven yet that you are a lawyer.

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/mikeeusa-michael-mcallister-mikhail-kvaratskhelia.19315/

LMAO

>>1013808

It is not possible for me to prove to you, a lay person who knows nothing of the field.

What you want me to do is for me to show you some identifying information that you can triangulate.

I will not do that.

Other lawyers know that I am an attorney due to the arguments I have made.

I think R0b0t1 from the gentoo mailing list put it succinctly:

>Not being able to rescind the license is like saying someone who was

>lent a lawnmower gets to keep it indefinitely with no contest because

>the person who lent it can't rescind the grant to the lawnmower.

>>1013843

eh wait a minute that gentoo fag thinks he doesn't get to keep gentoo because it was lent to him?

It is my intention to inform you of your legal rights.

A license is revocable by the property owner.

Others are suggesting to you otherwise. They are being disingenuous.

With both Linux and BSD there is no attached interest (no one paid you)

There is no detrimental reliance (you never promised anyone you would forfeit your default property rights, and they never payed you for this forfeit)

I waited two months for Eben Moglen's promised refutation. It never came.

You concoct some conspiracy theory about "trolling" because you simply do not understand

the very simple legal principals. You furthermore imagine it impossible for

a lawyer to waste his time informing you, because you see such a position

(one you did not obtain) as too lofty for any to waste their time with you.

I'm wasting my time. With you. To try to get it through your ignorant skulls

that you can rescind the grant, and that it is a partial remedy to getting thrown

out for whatever CoC is being foisted upon both the FreeBSD and Linux programmers.

Suffice to say: you are too stupid to understand that you do not know what you do not know

and that your leaders are blowing smoke up your ass in an attempt to get you to sign

a pledge against your current legal rights before you might make use of them.

That is: You are a Stupid Man. Like many of the weak twig like men in the movement.

You are little more than employees: and you accept being treated like cattle.

You accept being dominated by women, and revel in it: it is all you know.

You accept being dominated by bosses, and revel in it: it is all you know.

You also accept that you cannot take young girls as brides.

You accept that "your" wives dominate you.

You celebrate this.

You hate YHWH's law, which allows men to take girls (female children) as brides,

including in cases of rape (5th book of the law, 22nd chapter, 28th verse, in the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew MT)

You are an enemy of the god. You are an enemy of man.

You are a friend to women, and their support groups.

You design to convert all the intellectual property of the men who created the edifice into the hands of the women and

the entrenched interests that support them.

Men who do not like this have an option: Band together as a Bloc, and rescind license to your code.

On 2018-12-28 19:10, Ralf Mardorf via freebsd-chat wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 14:51:04 +0000 (UTC), Robbie Herb wrote:

>>Would it be possible to blacklist those domains? I was wondering that

>>from the first mail in this thread.

>

> This is my first and last reply regarding this topic.

>

> This troll sends this kind of spam to more mailing lists, than "just"

> those BSD and the Linux kernel lists we see in the headers here. I've

> noticed it at e.g. an Ubuntu mailing list, too.

>

> At one or the other mailing list, a list admin might not maintain the

> mailing list during festive season and several subscribers retrieve

> mails less often than usual, so instead getting one by one, they get

> tons of them at once, since an untrained spam filter can't work.

>

> However, 1. there are lists of those and other disposable-email-domains

> on git hub or similar sources available. 2. I'm not using such a list,

> but after reading half of the first sentence of one of the first mails

> from this spammer, a single mouse click to teach bogofilter was enough

> to get rid of all following emails immediately, excepted of replies to

> this malicious grinch.

>

> It is intended by this person to do it during festive season. We need

> to stand that this is an unfortunate moment to maintain spam filters

> and mailing lists. It gets even more worth, if people reply to those

> mindless mails. I can't understand that anybody takes the time to read

> more than one sentence, let alone to reply to it.

>

> ___________

> freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list

> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat

> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

>>1013844

Do you know what a license is?

It's a temporary grant.

You can rescind that licensing of your code unless the licensee paid you consideration, or reasonably relied on a promise of yours to not rescind (did he have any reasonable reason to believe that the promise was firm?)

Many of the linux programmers (who did not sign over their copyrights) were not paid by you. Nor did they ever promise you they would not rescind.

It would not be reasonable for you to rely on a promise they never made (nor one you never paid for).

Thus they can rescind, and thus their code can be barred by them from being included in future versions, at the least.

>>1013841

>>1013847

>more LARPing

I'm also a lawyer. The GPLv2 is not rescindable.

Fuck off mikeeusa faggot.

>>1013850

Yes it is.

The license is not a transfer of rights, something most lay people don't understand.

Between the various copyright-holding programmers and anonymous-licensee-0-9million:

There is no attached interest.

There is no promise not to rescind.

There is no reasonable reliance on said non-existent promise.

It is absolutely revocable by the grantor.

Refute that.

You've had months.

And yes, I am a lawyer.

The GPLv2, in the case of Linux. IS revocable. Like any licensee.

You paid NO consideration to the rights-holder.

Nothing. You have NO rights against him.

He made NO promise to you, you have nothing to rely upon.

>>1013850

Fuck off anti-marry-female-children piece of shit.

Tell us: what did you pay to programmer-rights-holder 7 through 10,002 to secure an interest regarding the license.

Tell us. Can you?

Dear Judge: I paid nothing to property owner, but I DEMAND to beable to use his property in perpetuity.

How do you figure that works out?

Tell us.

>>1013852

>>1013853

You are not a lawyer. You are a LARPer.

I'm a lawyer. Prove me wrong, fagget.

>>1013855

So you have no legal argument.

I see.

A license is revocable absent an attached interest.

He who pays nothing, receives nothing.

You paid nothing to Owner X.

Owner X may rescind the license he has granted to you.

A license is a temporary grant, not a transfer.

>>1013857

>So you have no legal argument.

Just like you.

At least I'm not a LARPer.

From:r030t1

Thank you for the response, though I feel you don't address my

question. Happily though, I spoke with an acquaintance and it was

determined that the subservience to the license (i.e. agreeing to be

bound by the GPL2) could not be offered as consideration as its

restrictions were not the licensee's to offer at the time of

acceptance of the license. The licensee had no rights to offer as part

of the contract, as the contract had not yet given them any rights to

give up. The terms put forth by the GPL2 are only restrictions that

are part of the license.

Furthermore, as stated above, it should seem quite self referential -

I can't offer my acceptance of a license as consideration, because it

is what I am trying to accept.

As I am sure you are aware, under US law there is no contract if both

sides have not provided consideration. This leaves us in the strange

place of gratis licenses being suggestions.

Cheers,

R0b0t1

On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 12:47 PM <vnsndalce@memeware.net> wrote:

>

> Thank you for your insight.

>

> It is a shame that there were no responses. They ignored your post, then

> kept baying at me: "no this is wrong" "you're not a lawyer" "I will not

> lower myself to refute you with arguments!".

>

> As for non-monetary consideration to support an additional no-revocation

> term:

> Many of the old linux-kernel (programmer)rights-holders have received

> nothing, and have made no such promise.

> Many of the contributors (who did not transfer their rights) have

> received nothing.

>

> There is nothing to uphold the contention that they have forfeited their

> default right to rescind license to their property.

> They never made such a promise, they were never paid for such a promise,

> they never contracted for such, etc.

>

> They wrote code, licensed it gratuitously,

> and now an attempt is being made to both control their speech, their

> action, and to basically convert their property.

>

> Most of the entities who have been licensed the works have neither paid

> anything to the various rights-holders,

> nor have they ever contacted nor been contacted by the various

> rights-holders, etc.

>

>>1013861

>> It is a shame that there were no responses. They ignored your post, then

>> kept baying at me: "no this is wrong" "you're not a lawyer" "I will not

>> lower myself to refute you with arguments!".

You are not a lawyer. Stop LARPing. Seek help for your mental illness.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/26/52

LARPers absolutely BTFO

>>1013863

So Mr Lawyer, how much do you get paid to LARP about your lawyer job?

>>1013878

>implying I'm a wageslave

I'm a proud NEET lawyer.

>>1013865

Jacobsen vs. Katzer is a case involving the Artistic License.

The appellate court found that the AL in was not a contract, and simply a pure (copyright) license. Thus statutory copyright damages were applicable rather than (lesser) contract damages.

If anything, This helps my case.

We want the GPL to be a pure (bare) license, just as the FSF has claimed for 2 decades(+?).

Are you people fucking morons btw?

You cite a case using the wrong license, that if applicable helps me, which I already explained in >>1013418

Are you fucking morons? Please, enlighten us.

>>1013878

My life.

I get to do what I wish with my time.

Which a wage slave does not.

(BTW: a license absent an interest is revocable at will, >>1013865 Jacobsen vs. Katzer found the Artistic License to be... a license and not a contract... and yet you cite it as "evidence" that I am wrong. Are you really that much of a lay piece of shit?)

>>1013926

Who is claiming that the GNU Public License is also a formal contract bound by contract law?

>>1013924

>LARPing

>Artistic License

Protip: Artistic License != GPLv2

https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/recognizing-warning-signs

>Confused thinking

>Social withdrawal

>Strange thoughts (delusions)

to: R0b0t1

It's good that you got an opinion from an additional party.

The programmers swear they know better than I on this subject.

In a previous debate on the subject, the programmers decided that the

fact that they followed the license was "consideration", even though

without the permission from the grantor they have no right to

modify or redistribute the grantor's program to begin with.

I had to attempt to dispell that notion, informing them that the

permission to redistribute is a gratuity from the grantor,

the permission to modify the work is a gratuity from the grantor,

the permission to make derivative works is a gratuity from the grantor,

and the permission to redistribute derivative works is a gratuity from the grantor;

that they have no permission to do these things without the grantor,

They still believe it however and ignore me:

Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them not to wreck it,

the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to keep the lawnmower forever

(they followed your instruction regarding the use of your property: "thus consideration,

thus irrevocable license")

Previous writing:

--------------------------------

The permission to redistribute was simply given, gratis, by the grantor.

He asked for nothing in return, and, infact received nothing, not even a promise of compliance.

At a later date any of countless licensees might decide they wish make derivative works based upon the copyright-owner's property.

By law this is barred.

However the copyright holder here has magnanimously granted that the licensee is, contrary to the default rule, permitted to create and publish derivative works provided that they use the same license as the original work.

Here the copyright holder suffers a detriment. He is payed nothing for this forbearance (no consideration).

The licensee does not suffer a detriment: he had no right to make nor publish a derivative work to begin with.

The extending to him, of permission, is a pure gratuity.

He payed nothing for the change from "You may not create nor distribute derivative works" to "You may create and distribute derivative works under the same license as the original work".

--------------------------------

Context:

--------------------------------

https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12682608&cid=57401302

Re: Straw Man (Score:0)

by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 30, 2018 @10:51PM (#57401302)

GPL is a bare license.

Don't agree?

What consideration was given?

Can't answer that? Don't know why it would matter?

Why do you think it is a contract then?

--------------------------------

https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12682608&cid=57403506

Re: Straw Man (Score:2)

by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2018 @09:21AM (#57403506) Homepage Journal

>What consideration was given?

The right to redistribute was given in exchange for use of the license for one's own code. Something for something. What was your question again?

--------------------------------

https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12682608&cid=57408874

Re: Straw Man (Score:0)

by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02, 2018 @12:58AM (#57408874)

Incorrect.

The permission to redistribute was simply given, gratis, by the grantor.

He asked for nothing in return, and, infact received nothing, not even a promise of compliance.

At a later date any of countless licensees might decide they wish make derivative works based upon the copyright-owner's property.

By law this is barred.

However the copyright holder here has magnanimously granted that the licensee is, contrary to the default rule, permitted to create and publish derivative works provided that they use the same license as the original work.

Here the copyright holder suffers a detriment. He is payed nothing for this forbearance (no consideration).

The licensee does not suffer a detriment: he had no right to make nor publish a derivative work to begin with.

The extending to him, of permission, is a pure gratuity.

He payed nothing for the change from "You may not create nor distribute derivative works" to "You may create and distribute derivative works under the same license as the original work".

>>1014034

Yes, I know that the Artistic License is not the GPL.

It is you who brought up Jacobsen vs. Katzer as if it "proved the GPL was non-revocable and was a contract".

_I_ pointed out that 1) JvK involved the Artistic License and NOT the GPL, and 2) In JvK the license was found to be enforceable as a license, not a contract.

So you were WRONG on two counts, and now you call me a skitzo.

Your side, if I may remind you, wants the GPL to be a contract with consideration so you can claim some interest is attached and it's irrevocable etc etc.

There IS no consideration. You paid and did nothing to acquire the permission the grantor grants to you. You have no interest attached. It is revocable.

>>1013933

>Who is claiming that the GNU Public License is also a formal contract bound by contract law?

Bruce Perens, for one (see slashdot article on the subject https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/09/29/055210/richard-stallman-says-linux-code-contributions-cant-be-rescinded) ,some of the linux kernel programmers who signed the CoC, and various people on the DNG mailing list, slashdot, the *bsd lists, the ubuntu and gentoo lists.

They claim I am not a licensed attorney.

Their claims are wrong.

I want to let the 1000s of men who wrote linux kernel code (and freebsd code...) and retain their copyrights that they can rescind if they wish, since the permission they extended regarding the use of their property was a pure gratuity: thus no attached interest... so that they can strike back at the women (and the entrenched interests who back them) who are ejecting them from their own projects.

So they may strike back against the society and culture that is their enemy and the enemy of all men.

CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").

They are wrong. You can revoke the license.

You were paid nothing for this grant.

The takers have nothing.

Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your speech, and ejecting you from your communities.

You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the woman and her state).

Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for yourself.

They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.

(See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily replaced)

But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as such. And you should do so.

And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of advertence not fixated on them.

>>1014511

The GPL is not revocable despite not being a contract. It is a license to distribute software and you cannot revoke the license on already existing publications. All you can do is revoke the license on future publications.

>>1014518

> And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of advertence not fixated on them.

lmao. You're a LARPer.

Band together as a Bloc and take action together. (Bloc revocation).

One practice note: do not send a cease-and-desist before-hand.

Do not let your lawyer send a cease-and-desist before-hand.

If a potential defendant knows that their liberties regarding a copyrighted work is in question

from entity X (entity X being a rights-holder etc), then they can rush to the courthouse

and file for a hearing to determine their rights.

They do this to give you less time to prepare your case, and to have the case start in

a jurisdiction that they feel is favorable to them (the CoC supporters will be trying

to get the case adjudicated in the 9th circuit, as they feel they have those

judges in their pocket - the 9th circuit absolutely hates men with a passion _even_

greater than the rest of America - and they like to overturn and ignore

black-letter law)

You will notice that the CoC supporters and No-Rescind group have fallen silent

in the last couple of months. They know they have very little to grasp onto,

and every one of their claims have been refuted.

Heather Meekers just gives the issue a gloss and says "lol no"

and points to a ZDnet article, where I have cited academic papers on the issue,

as-well as the law I learned in law school, and further studies.

Bruce Perens literally called you all replaceable.

As did Mathew Garret.

Specifically because they feel that they own your property now and they do not need you.

Inform them that such is not the case, in the most direct manner.

Remember: These are the people, the class, that prevent you from having sweet love.

They are those who uphold your legal disabilities (cannot marry cute young girls, as YHWH allows).

They are your enemies, and the enemies of all Men on earth.

On 2018-12-31 08:45, Ivan Ivanov wrote:

> Thank you very much for this message, friend. We the people should

> learn it and stop taking Cock of Conduct up our ass

>

> пн, 31 дек. 2018 г. в 05:07, <vnsndalce@memeware.net>:

>>

>>1014527

Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the license and prevent all further distribution of your code, and further use of it in future versions.

You can revoke the license.

What you are thinking about is the normal case of commercial distribution licenses - which have an attached interest (they were paid for, the licensor received consideration).

Almost all court cases involve such issues. Not bare licenses.

Additionally you are thinking about consumer protection statutes that would run against the property owner successfully suing for the destruction of all current now-unlicensed copies in existence.

Once the license is revoked the linux team may no-longer use the revoked code in future versions. They no longer have permission - the license they were given ceases to exist.

Normally the copyright owner then has the option to pray to the court that all unlicensed copys be destroyed. The court, as you put, is unlikely to grant this form of relief regarding existing copys that existed prior to the revocation.

That does not mean that Linux Team still is licensed to modify or distribute the code: they are not. The license does not survive the revocation.

Notice the detractors always simply say "NO u can't do this!" or "No u can't do this because this belongs to this group!".

While I explain where your rights come from, their history, and their extent.

Detractors say "This is like when Author, after being payed millions, tries to revoke an exclusive license from Publisher and have existing Published Works seized and destroyed!" "AND U CANT DO THAT!"

They try to fit the new case of

'Author was paid nothing, signed over nothing, didn't require anything from licensees'

to these cases where good consideration was payed for the license, and destruction of physical copies is being sought.

I have explained why this case is different.

For X to have an interest, it is vital that X secured it.

The detractors claim otherwise. They claim that your property can be taken from you because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.

What promise did you rely upon?

It is the right of the property owner to revoke.

You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his code.

He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke

(Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license. Something which the GPLv3 adds).

(The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours after publication)

Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance.

It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made, and a promise that you never payed the owner for.

In short: you are wrong,

and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the copyright owners to your own property, essentially.

(Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.)

On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote:

> "Consideration" can be in form of "

> detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and

> that reliance cost you something.

>

> So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing

> programs based on the license you have paid for the license.

tl;dr. Can someone mansplain this to me in one or two sentences?

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69158935#p69159102

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/198421322#p198422100

Posted to 4chans /g/ and /pol/

No one gives a fuck, or I'm shadowbanned.

>>1015300

If you lend (license) your lawnmower to BrucePerens, and receive nothing in return, and BrucePerens hires someone else to draw a star on your lawnmower, BrucePerens believes he can keep your lawnmower forever because he "relied" on your lease and , even though he paid you nothing and you never said you would not rescind the license (a default right of yours, you being the property owner).

>>1015300

MikeeUSA is sperging out because of the Linux CoC. He believes that you can rescind the GPLv2 and wants Linux contributors to do exactly that in protest of the CoC.

Nobody has done this though and nobody will do it either, so it really doesn't matter whether Mikee is right or not.

If only Mikee was a Linux contributor...

>>1015264

>Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the license and prevent all further distribution of your code, and further use of it in future versions.

You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is meaningless. The GPL is a commercial distribution license. People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big profit by doing this.

Thanks for your response :).

Please Spread the word regarding the copyright-holders rights (remeber: the

Linux kernel programmers did not sign over their copyrights, one of the

reasons Linux grew so quickly amongst developers where GNU very slowly

(The FSF will only include code where the copyright has been transferred

to it)), thus the various 1000s of linux programmers who didn't work

for a company all retain their property rights.

A license is just that: license (permission). It is not a transfer of

rights. These licenses that were given are non-exclusive (not to just

one entity) and are thus cannot be construed as transfers either.

It's simply permission to use property, same as if you allowed a neighbor

to use an ax you owned (gave them license to use the ax).

If that neighbor went and then chopped an enemy to pieces with that ax,

limb by limb, joint by joint, applying burning cauterizing oil after each dismemberment,

he cannot say "I will not give you back the ax, because I relied on

your lease, and thus used the ax in such a way as it would be inconvenient

for me to return it to you".

The ax is still yours and you may tell your friend: give me my ax back now

(this is you rescinding the license).

On 2019-01-01 22:44, Ivan Ivanov wrote:

> Wish you a nice time dear friend, thank you for taking part in saving

> the opensource world and making Linux programmers more concious in

> their world view. I have a couple of patches and now I am happy I

> didn't contribute them :)

>>1015333

>Thanks for your response :).

whom?

>he compares lending a physical object to licensing intellectual property

Why are you still LARPing as a laywer?

>>1015331

>You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is meaningless.

It is not meaningless, it is essential.

For you to have an attached interest, you must secure it.

And you must secure it from the property owner.

>The GPL is a commercial distribution license.

It is not. Nothing was payed to many 1000s of property owners for them to forgo their default rights, nor did they disclaim them in the license, nor were they paid for said non-existent disclaimers.

>People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big profit by doing this.

Until the license is revoked.

All your "rights" stem from the choice of the property owner to alienate his property as he sees fit.

Here he has chosen to alienate his property very little: he has simply granted a license (not a transfer). He may revoke this grant at his leasure since it is not secured by an interest.

You paid nothing to Owner. Owner gave nothing to you. He is simply allowing you to temporarily use his property. He can end this permission when he wishes.

You then must prove that you paid him to not use this property right of his, and that he gave to you (in return for this payment in money, performance, goods) a promise to forgo this right of his.

You cannot show that. You have no right to prevent him from recovering his property. In this case the code.

He can say: nope, you cannot use it any-longer in new editions of this software. Then the burden is on you to show the court where he sold you some right that runs counter to his default rights in his own property.

He never did so, so you have nothing to show.

>>1015334

The foundation of this law IS in property law.

Copyright is alienable in all ways that property is (see: US Copyright statute).

That is where you get the ability to LICENSE software, books, music, etc to begin with.

The Copyright act announces that these ethereal concepts, these things that are not in reality something one can truly physically extend dominion and control (ownership) over... are never the less... to be treated as such.

Yes, a License, first and foremost, is a PROPERTY law concept. Property which you can defend, which you can build walls around, which you can enclose, from which you can eject trespassers.

An Idea? A song? Can one eject a tresspasser from that? Can one ever rape a mind of an allready-recieved idea?

Can one cut from the grasp of an interlocutor, this supposed Object ... a song?

No. Not in reality.

But the Copyright Act declares differently.

It declares that these incorporeal concepts be imagined to be that piece of land on which your stronghold sits, onwhich your implements of defence are trained from the high towers you have erected.

It declares that a Song, A piece of litererature, every copy there-of, all-in-the-same, is not a wisp upon the wind...

but a piece of land, or some personal implement such as an ax.

And that you can, indeed, cut from the grasp of some theif this ax, you can cut his fingers one by one until that Ax of yours falls from his countenance back into your possession.

And the way this is done is by the destruction of all offending articles: which a court may order, and or the punishment of those who would violate the property rights of the owner, which again the court may order.

So yes, intellectual property is... like a physical thing. Because the law says it is.

Even though you cannot even prevent yourself from knowing that which is thrust upon you...

Here the property owners, who came to be property owners at the fixation of the article (that is: when the code was written down), chose not to transfer their ownership in the article. Instead they, after reading the Copyright Act, elected to a different from of Property alienation.

A rather limited form known as a license. Permission. A temporary grant which, at their time of choosing, they may end.

Since this grant makes no mention of them selling off their right to rescind the permission, and since, indeed, forbearance of said right was not sold, there is no attached interest with which to bind their hand.

They may rescind.

If you don't like that: pay them for a forbearance.

>>1015335

You claim that there must be an attached interest. I claim attached interest is meaningless for the revocation of the GPL because I claim that you cannot revoke the GPL. You have nothing to show that attached interest has any meaning for the revocation of the GPL.

So why does this nutjob type like this is reddit and why does he respond to the same post twice without acknowledging the fact? What's his disability?

>>1015340

You're wrong. When the US Constitution was drafted, the idea that authors were entitled to a copyright monopoly was proposed---and rejected. The founders of our country adopted a different premise, that copyright is not a natural right of authors, but an artificial concession made to them for the sake of progress. The Constitution gives permission for a copyright system with this paragraph (Article I, Section 8):

>[Congress shall have the power] to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means benefit for the users of copyrighted works. For example, in Fox Film v. Doyal, the court said,

>The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.

This fundamental decision explains why copyright is not required by the Constitution, only permitted as an option---and why it is supposed to last for “limited times.” If copyright were a natural right, something that authors have because they deserve it, nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time, any more than everyone's house should become public property after a certain lapse of time from its construction.

Copyright law is founded not in property law but to promote the progress of the arts.

>>1015342

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/MikeeUSA

Let's say you had an old knife shack. Called Knife Shack InC. (you

ain't incorporated, you just call it that, looks nice on the sign). On

an old dusty road, telephone pole bout ready to fall down next typhoon

hit. Behind yo knoif shack there is quite a body of water, now it's

murky, but it is infact quite deep. An old sink hole, now filled

beyond filling with the dandruff of the ages. No outlets, so the water

just pools and infiltrates the surrounding properties.

You own this little piece of the world, owned it for a few

generations, bought it off of the old landlords when they were selling

mineral rights and then decided to get rid of the rest too.

They went up north. A reverse carpet-bagging situation.

You don't have much. You have a house on another piece of property,

quite aways up the road, and this shack, and this sinkhole. You

actually are quite the property owner, but it ain't worth shit. That's

what erryone tell you anyhow.

The old big house been turned into an old folks home a decaded ago,

shame, it's a piece of shit like your property now - least that's what

everyone say.

Pope's on TV, old fan from the 50s still working, You could get a flat

screen but the power supplies can't handle the brown outs here, old TV

still works fine, you use it like a radio anyway.

Guy comes into your fish shack. You ain't never seen him in your life,

you tell yourself. You know him however, he lives somewhat close,

comes in from time to time, looks around, he in a suit, he never buys

from you anything, he has a reputation, suits getting dusty, the

pinstripes are wider than that which the people on TV wear.

He comes up to you. You're playing with a knife of yours, spinning it

on it's tip. It's a fish skinning knife with a gutting hook on the

back. It is quite a large one. The blade is a full 15 inches, thick,

you could work on the sand sharks with this, if you ever took the hour

and ahalf drive down to the beach.

You have a sign on your counter: "We's generous".

Sometimes people ask you what that means.

The man in the suit approaches you: first time for everthing.

S: "Ay, I'd like that knife"

You tell him it isn't for sale.

S: "I ain neva said I thoughts it was, whass 'Wes generous' mean anyhow"

You tell him that you will lend him the knife if he wishes.

S: "Aight"

He takes possession of the knife.

He's a fisher he says.

The man in the striped suit leaves.

Months go by. You see the man sometimes, he tells you how the knife

you licensed to him is getting great use, he fishes alot you see.

He then inquires about that murky seemingly bottomless sinkhole out

back. He wishes to be-able to dump some fishing refuse in it.

S: "We's generous, right?"

You grant him license to travel over your land to the sinkhole and

dump the fishing refuse into the sinkhole.

Time passes.

(... continued)

(continued ...)

You notice your knife has become more resplendent.

Each time the stripped suited man, this fisher, catches a fish, it

seems, he is in the habit of tacking a red five pointed star from

Russia onto the handle. Each time the man comes into your shack you

notice that there are more and more red stars, additionally, between

the stars is now a dark red lacquer. It looks quite stunning, a battle

worn cleaver; shouting it's victory against countless ensnared aquatic

beings.

Time, again, passes.

Two police officers show up. Not the state troopers who sometimes come

by the shop, no these are from one of the towns.

P1: "You sell guttin knives here"

You respond in the affirmative.

P1: "You ever sold a rather large red gutting knife, tack handled"

He seems to be getting agitated.

You say no, but you have licensed a fisher to use a knife you own, and

while it was not originally tack-handled, nor red, now it would indeed

match such a description.

P1: "You fking piece of shit, you get us back that knife or you are

going down as an accomplice, you understand that you coal bla.."

The second police man interrupts him.

They start to head out.

The second police man informs you that they will be by the store three

days from now, as well as one week from now. To please reassert

possession of the knife in that time.

A month goes by and they do not come.

Three months later you are arrested and interrogated in the harshest

possible terms. You wonder if you can father children anymore.

You are informed that the prosecutor has agreed to prosecute you as an

accomplice, however if you come into possession of the knife, they may

reconsider.

Soon thereafter the suited man appears in your store.

You tell him that you are ending the license you had extended to him,

regarding both the knife and the permission to dump in the sinkhole.

He contends that the knife is irrevocable:

He relys upon the knife to execute his job of fishing.

Furthermore he has put tacks in the knife, and if he were to return

the knife to you his tack work would go to waste from his point of view.

Additionally he tells you that he also relys on your extended license

to dump the fishing refuse into the sinkhole for his fishing business

and thus that license is irrevocable aswell.

You desperately plead with him and yell "Give me back my fking knife!".

He laughs and leaves.

You are arrested and tried as an accomplice, your assets are seized

under civil forfeiture as property used in the commission of crime.

The suited man who was the fisher is tried in asbtentia for

Conversion, amongst other rather more serious charges.

As of right: the knife is yours, and you had every right to rescind

the gratuitous license you granted regarding it. The fisher never

payed you anything for use of the knife, nor of your land. He cannot

hold you to your "bargain".

The man was a fisher of men.

>>1015330

>>1015323

Cheers.

>>1013478

>3D isn't PD

how nu r u?

Line Unix

>>1015344

17 USCS Sects. 201

(d) Transfer of ownership.

(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

A license without an attached interest is revocable by the owner of the property.

The FSF require contributors to their projects to assign ownership of the works to them: For the FSF the license is not enough.

Put two and two together.

>>1015376

May I interest you in a story about a humble fisherman:

>>1015356

>>1015357

?

>>1015729

So fucking gnu is safe. woah thank god.

>>1015748

But not linux.

Linus decided to ignore the FSF's way of doing things.

He did get alot more developer support for it, however.

But there is a cost to that.

>>1015593

>not having grown out of the childish weeb mentality

cringe

Not one image posted. Isn't this an image board?

Any news from unhappy linux devs, or are they all happy about the CoC and takeover?

>>1015714

You haven't proven that copyright law has its foundation in property law. All that proves is that you can transfer ownership of copyright materials. Copyright law by its very foundation was designed to expire over time. This is because the idea of property is not the foundation of copyright.

>>1015755

>conflating weebs with /r9k/ retards who thinks women are the real jew

Not nice.

>>1015791

I never said Copyright had it's foundation in property law.

(Copyright has it's foundation in the statute of Anne)

> >>1015334

>The foundation of this law IS in property law.

"This law" in question is your ability to alienate your copyrights, in whole or in part. That has its foundation in property law.

Why? Because the current Copyright Act declares it so.

It has declared your intangible rights to BE property (or to be treated as such).

Yes, In HAVE proven that the area of law we are speaking of, the alienation of your copyrights, IS founded in property law.

And if you think otherwise you can go and FUCK yourself.

>>1015791

>>1015344

17 USCS Sects. 201

(d) Transfer of ownership.

(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

---------------

Yes: the law regarding alienation of copyrights is founded in property law. Because the current Copyright Act says so. Regardless of how "unconstitutional" you think that is. (You also probably feel the long duration given to Copyright by the current Act is "unconstitutional" as-well. The supreme court thinks differently)

You don't have a leg to stand on.

A license without an attached interest is revocable by the owner of the property.

>>1015791

So your claim is that copyright is not treated as property, that licenses do not exist (these are a property law concept), that selling (transferring) a copyright to another does not exist, that selling a license (permission) to a copyrighted work does not exist, that bequeathing copyrights do not exist, that giving copyrights as a gift does not exists, and that giving license to use copyrighted work does not exist.

Am I correct there?

Because the foundation for YOU to be-able to do any of that is property law, which the Copyright Act adopts.

(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

--

>may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law

>may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law

>may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law

Guess what law deals with transferring ownership.

Property law.

YOU FUCKING RETARDED PIECE OF FILTH.

Yes, your ability to license your copyrighted work stems from that line in the copyright act: "may be transferred in whole or in part" "part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law".

That law in question is the law of property, you FUCKING RETARD.

See: YOU are not a lawyer.

I am.

FUCK you.

A license without an attached interest is revocable by the owner of the property.

The FSF require contributors to their projects to assign ownership of the works to them: For the FSF the license is not enough.

Put two and two together.

And yes, this could wreck the linux kernel: that does not mean it's not true.

1000 copyright holders could revoke tomorrow and prevent their code from being published in future versions of linux by whomever they dislike.

Whomever they dislike did not secure any interest in these gratuitously licensed works from copyright-holders.

Thus when they go into court they have little or no leg to stand on when trying to defend "their" interest.

"What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" is not a legal argument.

Additionally you do not have the right to do anything with the copyright holders property without his permission. Following his demands regarding his own property is not a forbearance on a legal right by you, nor is it a payment by you to him: you do not have the right to use his property in a way he does not see fit.

If he says: you may use this property, but do not draw stars upon it, you not drawing stars upon it is not a forbearance of a legal right that you had.

Same with if he says "but don't modify the code".

Same with if he says "but don't modify and redistribute my code with different terms".

You simply do not have a right to modify and redistribute his code from the get-go, nor to make derivative works.

Him extending this permission, without payment, is a pure gratuity.

He can end that gratuity unless you contract with him to secure an interest in not doing so.

>>1015714

>You haven't proven that copyright law has its foundation in property law. All that proves is that you can transfer ownership of copyright materials. Copyright law by its very foundation was designed to expire over time. This is because the idea of property is not the foundation of copyright.

Yes I have. Go fuck yourself lay person. I have proven that the law that allows you the ability to alienate or partially alienate your copyright is the area of law known as property law. Read the section of the Copyright Act again, then enroll in a law school and learn what the law is.

>>1015999 (checked)

>I am

I've asked you multiple times for proof, but you haven't provided any yet. I guess you aren't one. I'm pretty sure you're a LARPer (like most of /tech/ LOL).

This seems to be a calculated attack against Linux and Linus Torvalds to be honest and he has been approached before to implement a backdoor in Linux before.

I mean how likely is it that his own daughter was convinced to be against meritocracy, the very thing that made her dads Linux project possible (because how could one operate without meritocracy.)

So who approached Linus' daughter who in turn likely convinced her dad to dim down and accept insert the CoC deeply into the Linux project?

>>1016052

>So who approached Linus' daughter

Wasn't even needed. She studied at Duke University.

>>1016053

Welp. There is our cause, so who approached Duke University? Just kidding, we're in a sick world which rejects nature, beauty, logic, intelligence, and what-not.

>>1016031

I cannot help the willfully ignorant.

(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

That is the proof.

" or by operation of law"

Which includes property law.

Which is what allows you to license the property to begin with.

So: Yes: The foundation of licensing law IS property law.

Which the Copyright Act adopts in that section.

You are a stupid fucking lay-person.

This is why you cannot understand what I am pointing out.

Because you are unread and uneducated.

And no: I cannot get 3 years of law school through your thick fucking head in a few forum posts.

>>1016031

Answer this: what give you the ability to license your code to others?

>>1016110

Clearly some people want you discourage from posting, I am convinced you are a honest and trying to help here and you're certainly not LARPing since you're making total sense and what you're saying can most certainly be backed up.

I hope you're posting this somewhere else where people take seriously and can reach the copyright holders of the Linux source code.

Thanks a lot.

>want you discourage

want to discourage you

>where people take seriously

where people take you seriously

Please excuse my retarded English

>>1016132

I posted within a (then) ongoing thread in /g/ on 4chan:

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69161822/this-is-linux-in-201

Starting at: 69163819

There was some discussion.

I also post to the lkml and some linux and bsd mailing lists.

I get ignored on the lkml now, and banned from the others, but on the others some have thanked me for the info.

If you and others could spread the word, that would be nice.

If I were good at marketing my FOSS projects would have more than a paltry tens-of-K downloads over years.

>>1016132

Some time ago there was talk of some linux copyright holders banding together to pursue possible legal action. They claimed they hired an attorney etc and were old contributors who were not happy.

Did anything come of that? Or has everyone's spirits been quashed?

If anyone else wishes to speak on the lkml, you just have to send an email to:

linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

The list doesn't require you to be a member.

Other lists could be:

gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org

ubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com

debian-user@lists.debian.org

dng@lists.dyne.org

ci-users@centos.org

centos@centos.org

freebsd-women@freebsd.org

freebsd-chat@freebsd.org

misc@openbsd.org

(always send a CC to misc@openbsd.org, keep em in the loop)

> >>1016132

> >I hope you're posting this somewhere else where people take seriously and can reach the copyright holders of the Linux source code.

The response is usually:

>That can't be so, because then that would mean the legal foundation of linux and other free software that uses these licenses without copyright assignment to a central sure-not-to-revoke entity would constitute an empire of dust.

or

>Troll!

or

>LOL NO U ARE WRONG!!!

or

>You are not a lawyer and should be arrested for illegal practicing of law without a license

etc.

> >Thanks a lot.

Thank you too.

>>1016132

I also refuted the SFConservancy's "debunking" within 5 hours, on the LKML, of it's publishing its attempted defense of the GPLv2 (they were trying to misconstrue a clause in the GPLv2 as a promise by the grantor not to revoke, which it was not. A promise, even if it existed, the taker didn't pay any consideration for nor forego a legal right etc, so would even in that case be void), but everyone treats the issue as settled now.

>(Said now more simply than initially:)

>The clause you are referring to there is one that I have addressed previously.

>

>It states that if a licensee violates the license and suffers automatic revocation, that licensees down the chain do not automatically in-turn have their licenses revoked.

>

>No more, no less.

>

>That clause is being cited as a "GPLv2 no revocation by grantor clause". It is not such a thing.

>

>The SFConservancy etc never responded after I debunked their debunking.

>

>There is no "no-backsies" clause in the GPLv2, and even if there was you did not pay for it.

>

>The basis is very simple: you do not get what you do not pay something for.

>

>YOU did not pay OWNER for his right to rescind. You didn't pay him anything. You just use his property.

>

>He can say you can't anymore.

However when I talk to other lawyers, professors at the school I went to, they take it as a given that a license absent an interest is revocable.

When I talked to a relative who has worked in the legal field for decades he has confirmed the same thing: even if there is a clause that says the grantor will never revoke: if you didn't pay for it that clause is likely void.

The GPLv2 doesn't even contain such a clause (v3 explicitly adds such a clause, aswell as a term-of-years the length of the copyright term), and linux is licensed under version 2, not 3.

And, again, most licensees did not pay those programmers, who still own the copyright to their code, anything what-so-ever, so there is no secured interest even if Linux was under version 3 (which it isn't).

>>1016158

The difference between you and them is that you believe that the GPL requires consideration between licensee and grantor to be revocable. Everybody else in the SFConverancy and the LKML disagree, a software distribution license is non-revocable.

>>1016158

(continued)

Often cited now is a ZDNet article as proof that the black-letter law is wrong.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/what-happens-if-you-try-to-take-your-code-out-of-linux/

In there is quoted:

> In 2008, Pamela Jones at Groklaw remarked to an earlier attempt to take code out of the kernel, "[You] can't retroactively revoke licenses previously granted, unless the license terms allow you to do so. The most you can do is stop granting new licenses."

(Pamela Jones was a paralegal).

> Jones continued "Here's the GPL v2. See any terms allowing you to revoke? Me neither." In short, we've seen this problem before.

Now, this is true for commercial licenses which are contracts, that is because an interest is attached: You payed consideration for the terms of the contract. The contract states a method of revocation, you payed the owner for that term, that term controls.

This is NOT true for a license (permission to use property) that has simply been given to you.

This is a crucial point that they keep ignoring, intentionally.

I have the legal books they are reading and operating from, and they simply speak about commercial licensing contracts.

They're helpful if you're just going through the motions to get cases before a judge, but without knowing the rest of the law: one doesn't know what one doesn't know.

Basically how they are researching the law is: "ok let's look up the subject: Copyright", they then look up "revocation", and read how the courts generally resolve these issues, these issues always involving commercial paid licensing contracts, and not gratuitous licenses.

They do not ask "well why is it that these various copyright licenses are irrevocable?". The reason is: they are irrevocable because the taker has payed for them to be irrevocable. They payed the owner for that term, and the owner can't then take away what he gave them.

(A lawyer, generally, knows this and has a wider view of the law. A paralegal: no - they work mostly on whatever their employer works on. And yet ZD Net and everyone else cites her and ignores the underlying law.)

Which simply is not the case with a gratuitous grant of permission.

They either didn't pay attention to that part in law school, forgot about it, or are trying to defend the position of their clients.

Many of the various linux programmers simply gave permission, and didn't ask for anything in return. Additionally the takers did not give them anything in return (not that an un-asked for payment would sufficent: it wouldn't be).

Thus it is a gratuity from linux-coder-1007 to downloading-and-hacking-entity-10000007 that said entity may use linux-coder-1007's code, and modify it, and redistribute the modifications.

It's a pure gratuitous license from linux-coder-1007 to whomever.

And that permission can be rescinded by linux-coder-1007 when he wishes.

Basically the words of a paralegal is taken as gospel truth, the words of a license attorney, even when explaining the issues in great detail, including their foundations, is taken as dog shit.

>"LOL NOPE: PJ said otherwise in 2005, u wrong!"

<"PJ is repeating the rule she knows from a section in Copyright Litigation Handbook, which applies to commercial copyright contracts, very specifically _because_ they are _commercial_ _contracts_ (that is: the taking side has secured his interest, there has been a meeting of the minds, etc). And yes I have the same handbook, along with many many other volumes"

>"Haha fuck you you don't know anything and are LYING!"

>>1016160

>The difference between you and them is that you believe that the GPL requires consideration between licensee and grantor to be revocable. Everybody else in the SFConverancy and the LKML disagree, a software distribution license is non-revocable.

Incorrect. The SFConverancy tries to construe the clause I cited earlier as a promise not to revoke, thus inducing, by their argument, a reasonable reliance on the part of the taker that the permission will not be revoked.

THAT is their argument.

That clause is not what they pro-port it to be, nor would it be effective if not contracted for. It is not reasonable to rely on a term that you paid no consideration to the grantor for.

>a software distribution license is non-revocable.

Absolutely wrong. There is no such rule.

What you are thinking of, and you hinted at previously by calling the license a commercial license, is ... indeed, commercial software licenses where the taker pays consideration to the grantor.

In those cases, where there is a clause regarding revocation of the license, where the taker has payed for that license, the courts construe the contract to be one where those terms are not revocable because they are supported by the consideration the taker payed to the grantor.

THAT is why commercial software licensing contracts "are irrevocable".

Go read the cases. The fact that the consumer actually payed for the license is the deciding factor. He payed, he keeps what he payed for.

You did not pay? You did not pay linux coder 729 who is still a copyright holder to his code? Well your "interest" is unsupported as regards to that piece of linux coder 729's property.

>>1016160

>Everybody else in the SFConverancy and the LKML disagree, a software distribution license is non-revocable.

Yes, and they are wrong.

All the programmers in the LKML are indeed wrong in what they believe.

The non-lawyer* at the SFConverancy is indeed wrong in what he believes (They even had to hire outside counsel to draft their response, which was full of weasel-words and non-statements)

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Kuhn#Academia_and_early_career

The fact of the matter is, there is no rule "A software license is irrevocable".

The rule is, when stated simply: you get what you have paid for.

If you contracted for a specific rule regarding revocation, and you payed the grantor for that rule: that rule will apply between you and him regarding the piece of property (unless it's against public policy etc).

If you did not pay for such, you cannot rely on such a "promise".

That is why you THINK there is a "software licenses are irrevocable" rule: because the cases on this issue involve commercial 1990s software. In those cases the judges ruled that the company could not willy-nilly revoke licenses because the customer had payed them for it: specifically for the terms in the license: so since they were paid for the court held the company to it's end of the bargain.

Here there was no bargain: The linux coders simply have allowed you to use their property without you giving them anything what-so-ever.

That is the crux of the issue.

That is why the FSF and others require copyright assignment for any and all contributions of code that they will accept into their own code base.

If they did not the actual copyright owner, having been paid no consideration for the license terms, can recall the property at any time (rescind the permission: the license).

That is absolutely the case with Linux.

That is why the GPLv3 was drafted, that is why they are trying to have the kernel programmers electronically assent to all these extra pledges now.

They want there to be some interest they can point to as reliance. Right now there is NONE.

And even then, even then, even if the programmers put out a piece of code and said "I will not revoke this license".

(Which they did not do in the GPLv2).

How is it secured by you, Entity X? How is that promise something you can reasonably rely upon? What have you given to Property Owner for that promise? And did you come to a meeting of the minds regarding such?

Nothing and no.

You have no case whatsoever. You cannot bind the hand of the property owner regarding his own property without giving him something that he has asked you for: and you can't simply "give" him back his own property as "consideration" either (since you have no prior-rights to it).

>>1016168

If you have a contract to distribute software complete with non-revocable interest, then there is absolutely no need for an extra license on top of that to distribute the software. The contract would define the terms of distribution and the software license would be meaningless to define the exact same terms as the contract. If the contract is non-revocable only when there is consideration is paid, then it would be impossible for the GPL to exist. The GPL exists to convey licenses to licensees who may not have any direct connection to the grantor. If the GPL is only valid between grantor and the direct licensee who has paid, then how is it possible for any licensee to get the license to distribute the GPL software without directly contracting with the grantor?

>>1016174

>The GPL exists to convey licenses to licensees who may not have any direct connection to the grantor. If the GPL is only valid between grantor and the direct licensee who has paid, then how is it possible for any licensee to get the license to distribute the GPL software without directly contracting with the grantor?

Exactly.

Exactly.

Do you understand why the edifice the FSF built and which linus spurned, mocked, and ignored is essential now?

The FSF's plan for free-software was for contributors to assign their copyrights to the FSF, which is a 501(c)3 org (a non-profit, a charity). Then for it to distribute the software under the GPL(1 and later 2) to the rest of the people (for a fee ofcourse (see early emacs)). Promises to give a gift to a charity are generally irrevocable ( you learn this in law school, it is an exception to the general rule that promises are revocable absent consideration).

Then linus' way of doing things spread like wildfire, and now everyone was distributing code under the license, not require copyright assignment, and not being a (perhaps) charity for extra protection.

The FSF was careful in creating its citadel, with multiple levels of legal theory to protect the code from it's progenitors' whims, under the laws of the USA.

And linus said fuck that and fuck you RMS: you don't know what you're doing.

So they had to ret-conn the GPLv2 as a license for the masses.

And the rest is history.

> If the contract is non-revocable only when there is consideration is paid, then it would be impossible for the GPL to exist.

And the nail is struck.

>>1016173

>That is why the FSF and others require copyright assignment for any and all contributions of code that they will accept into their own code base.

The reasoning you put for the FSF is a strawman argmuent. This is their actual position on why they request for FSF assignment of copyright.

https://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html

>This is what legally makes the FSF the copyright holder so that we can register the copyright on the new version

https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf

>One of the services the FSF provides to the free software movement is license enforcement for the GNU Project.

>>1016180

>>1016179

What you're saying is that licenses don't exist, only contracts with an attached interest can exist. That's an insane theory.

(Audio/Video): The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license recission (revocation).

Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code.

Video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9O5vz_1546606404

( Audio Only: )

(Part1: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=s3Sr9_1546605652 )

(Part2: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOkfS_1546605889 )

>this thread has been deleted because of a possible violation of our terms of service

What could you have possibly done to get deleted from Live Leak?

>>1016257

(((This)))

>>1016254

Did you forget that LiveLeak is already pozzed?

>>1015755

>facing the ugly reality

>childish

>>1015775

Tell that to the faggot who banned torfags from posting images. Maybe /tech/ is finally starting to take security seriously.

Liveleak took the files down, here they are again:

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license recission (revocation).

Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code.

>>1016254

>What could you have possibly done to get deleted from Live Leak?

Who knows, happens every time I post a file there, within a few hours.

One note: The audio/videos are explained in American.

Those who enjoy English may read the lengthy explanations given here.

American was chosen for the audio/video for those who do not like reading.

Hopefully this choice of dialect will be most understandable for The People.

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

(Note: these will only be up for 30 days so re-post them somewhere else perhaps.)

On 2019-01-03 12:19, MPhil. Emanoil Kotsev wrote:

> vsnsdualcet wrote:

>

>> On 2019-01-02 02:32, Mike Galbraith wrote:

>>> Take your medication.

>>

>> Don't like the story? Why what is wrong with it.

>>

>> Was it the entrance, the middle, or the conclusion?

>>

>> It simply explains licensing in a way you might find helpful, as it

>> relates to linux.

>

> No, it does not, because you can not copy and redistribute anything but

> software.

>

> PLS give us a break!

Your "no it does not because we are talking about software" argument is, to put it simply in a way you can understand: retarded.

It shows that you, a software engineer, because you are learned in one field of endeavor, believe yourself to be "smart" and "reasonable" in unrelated fields of endeavors. You are wrong. This really shows how stupid alot of you western software-only guys are. (Also moronic is your constant disparagement of those who have to deal with the physical realities of things: the hardware guys).

I have gone to lengths to attempt to teach you the foundation of licensing law, how it interacts with copyright, and how such applies to the specific facts surrounding the linux kernel; myself knowing the history of the kernel, and also being studied in US law.

It doesn't seem to get through.

So simply: You are not a lawyer. Do not think your "common sense" as a software engineer applies to the law.

---

(On to the knifeshack analogy/story:)

In the USA, the law regarding licensing of various properties is similar. The key here is that the owner simply gave permission to use his property (he did not seek payment for extending that permission).

To illustrate the fact, so that non-lawyers would understand, we have used a Knife as an analogy.

Also note: It is from the USA that the CoC problem is emanating, so it is right to use the law of the USA to illustrate the point (also since that's where lawsuits are most likely to occur: You do know about the USA, correct?)

It doesn't matter so much, in this corner of the law, that IP is not physical property. In the area of giving permission to use it, it is treated much the same.

Remember: the "Thing" that was extended to you was the permission, that is what you "have", you do not own the intellectual property you were licensed.

Now, once we look at commercial licenses, things get more complicated because you paid for the license. But the key point here is that this isn't such a situation. We are not discussing commercial software licensing here.

When you cursory look up information to "fact check" me, 9 times out of 10 you will be reading about the law as regards to commercial licenses where there is bargained-for consideration. Then you cite that to say that I'm wrong. (PJ made this very same mistake on this issue in 2005, she's still "cited" even though she's just a paralegal (still) and not a lawyer, and is wrong (maybe that's why she shut-up once her identity was know)).

A license not coupled with an interest is revocable by the property owner. It's fairly simple. Ask yourself "did I pay linux programer-copyright-holder 7829 for permission to use his code?". No? Then you have not paid for whatever "promise" he made to you (if any). Thus you cannot bind him. And as I have shown; he never even made the promise you imagine he did.

The whole counter-argument is to concoct some non-existent attached interest. The fact that we are dealing with software and not land or personal property is NOT controlling. I know you think it should be handled differently, but your uneducated opinion is not controlling law.

Perhaps you would be better off with a video recorded in American to explain it all simply:

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

Posted to lkml:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/6/6

( linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org )

That may be OpenBSD policy, but it is not the law.

Your OpenBSD policy cannot bind the copyright holder of the works you distribute.

It's also an incorrect statement of the law.

If the copyright holder did not receive consideration/payment/etc from you: you have no interest to bind him with.

He can rescind.

If you read the BSD license(s) there is never a "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, so you cannot even make an argument that you relied on a promise of his (he made no such promise). Furthermore you never paid for that non-existent promise to begin with: he just gratuitously gave you permission to use and modify his property.

He end that permission.

Why would you think that you can make promises for some other entity even? How does that even make sense to you?

Additionally, the *BSD projects (as entities) cannot make promises about code they do not own the copyright to. So if you did not require copyright assignment from developer X, Y, Z, said developer still owns the copyright: not the project.

So, maybe the project or entity E is making some promise: but that promise was not made with respect to code snippet FOO since the project or entity E does not actually OWN code snippet FOO but instead there has been granted a license to use and modify it. Permission that can be rescinded from the licensee E unless the licensee E secured an interest regarding that (paid the programmer, for instance, and he agreed to terms etc).

The rule is that a license is revocable absent an attached interest.

Gratuitous licenses are not worth the paper they are printed on.

(usually they are never printed out tho :P, or even read).

They do not bind the grantor.

They bind YOU. Not the property owner.

(If you want the property owner bound to the terms you purchase that right from him in some way.)

Ingo Schwarze <schwarze () usta ! de> wrote:

--------------

Hi,

i'm not replying to the trolls (or their off-topic rants) in this

thread, and i'm not spamming other project's lists. Instead, i'd

merely like to clarify a point that is actually on topic on this

list, to avoid that users get confused by FUD.

One of the trolls wrote:

> A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will.

> This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD

> license(s).

That is not what /usr/share/misc/license.template means,

and i'm sure all OpenBSD developers are aware of that.

The OpenBSD website makes the meaning very explicit:

https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

[...]

Finally, releases are generally binding on the material that they

are distributed with. This means that if the originator of a

work distributes that work with a release granting certain

permissions, those permissions apply as stated, without discrimination,

to all persons legitimately possessing a copy of the work. That

means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can

not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals

are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the

copyright holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke

permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed,

though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future

distributions of that work.

Yours,

Ingo

lol, you people are idiots. In a time where you can and will be fired and ruined for ticking the wrong box, rescinding your code from a project such as the linux kernel will just blackball you from the entire industry forever. For good reason too. I wouldn't play with someone who takes the ball home when he gets mad either.

>>1016798

Why to think like a wageslave.

The old-school linux contributors did not do it for money, and their copyrights (obviously) are still good.

Why would you give a shit if you were blacklisted from "the industry", you have a cause of action in your hands. Legal action can reap you dividends that you would never otherwise achieve through your entire life.

A cause of action is worth 100 or 1000 of your earning years, often.

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

>>1016798

>lol, you people are idiots. In a time where you can and will be fired and ruined for ticking the wrong box, rescinding your code from a project such as the linux kernel will just blackball you from the entire industry forever. For good reason too. I wouldn't play with someone who takes the ball home when he gets mad either.

If bloc-recissions and litigation happen, you may not have an industry to blackball them from.

And you can't "just reimplement" the removed code and functionality either: as that may be infringing on the previous work as-well :). More litigation follows to determine that.

Bump

>>1016831

bump negated

>>1016832

Nope, it be bumped regardless of your SAGE.

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

>>1016833

bump negated again

>>1016833

bump negated

Whose voice is this? Is this your voice, Mikee?

>>1016835

Clearly it's the RZA explaining licensing law in a way the people can understand.

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

(Audio/Video): The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license recission (revocation).

Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code.

Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

>>1016835

Do you appreciate the RZA taking time from his busy life to lay down the truth regarding licensing as regards to linux?

>>1016865

>appreciating niggers

I thought you hated niggers?

Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

>>1016867

>Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

>

>

>

>Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

Interesting. Thanks for the links.

>>1016867

>Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Bump. Bigly if true

Why is no one discussing this anymore.

It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from programmers.

Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by virtue of being "smarts"?

Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )

Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong.

Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing.

It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades said: he's full of shit.

Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken.

The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one of them could shake the tree.

Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

>>1016912

What the fuck did you just fucking ask me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I passed the bar top of my class at Harvard Law, and I've been involved in numerous lawsuits which were settled outside of the courtroom, and I have over 300 won cases. I am trained in debate and I'm the top attorney in the entire US legal system. You are nothing but just another defendant. I will sue you into oblivion with repercussions the likes of which has never been seen before in the courtroom, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with asking that shit to me over the internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting the cops in my pocket across the USA and your IP is being stolen right now so you better patent that shit, maggot. The shit that sues you into the ground and makes you want to kill yourself. You're fucking broke, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can sue you with over seven hundred ways, and that's without picking up a legal book. Not only am I extensively trained in cross-examination, but I have access to the entire long dick of the law, and I will use it to its full extent to sue your ass into the ground, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit bylaws all over you and you will drown in attorneys fees. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

Bump

>>1016867

I like cute young white girls.

I blaim my "fellow" white men for banning men from having them.

(White men like huge hogs of women, and enjoy being subservient to women, etc)

However, the people of America speak and listen in a certain cant.

So one must, if one wishes to bring the information to their minds, study, learn, and learn to mimic this way of communicating of theirs.

Clearly, written English does nothing for them. So after much study we have come to a possible solution...

>>1016893

>>1016881

Is it not fortunate that we have moguls like the RZA to explain this to The People. Now, perhaps, the linux programmers will learn?

Video: openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: ufile.io/sdhpl

>>1016893

It is true, please spread, upload to youtube, etc.

This is the future you all chose, otherwise it would not be this way currently, you have only yourselves to blame, and yourselves to rely on to fix it, if you can't/won't then it is simply meant to be.

>>1016916

> I will sue you into oblivion with repercussions

Is contradicted by:

>You're fucking broke, kid.

As one cannot get blood from a stone.

> I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can sue you with over seven hundred ways, and that's without picking up a legal book.

We try to explain this to the linux programmers, but they would rather believe the utterances of a paralegal named PJ from 2005 than a lawyer.

They would rather "understand" quick one line snarky comments from female "legal assistants" than an explanation of the foundation of the law, how it apply to their facts, etc etc.

Some cunt woman saying "LOL NOPE!!!" is gospel truth to them. Multiple published papers (which have been forwarded to them), plus lengthy explanation by me, confirmation by others, and immediate refutations of any counter-claims are nothing in their minds.

>>1017057

I am trying to.

Please spread the video. The linux kernel programmers on the LKML don't seem to like to read.

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

bump.

Thoughts on the video?

Would some please share the video with 4chan and send us the link to the discussion? (And perhaps other sites?)

Bump

Uploaded to live leak again:

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=Rtgu_1546819241

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=Rtgu_1546819241

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CJ7XV_1546819729

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sfbNB_1546820418

Video: openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: ufile.io/sdhpl

Not sure if the liveleaks will get any comments or will be removed again.

Put it on YourSay and Politics

Any thoughts anyone? Please spread to 4chan and other sites and post link.

>ex on 2019-01-06 at 18:52:10 said:

>

>ESR: Why is no one talking about the CoC anymore, the entryism, and legal remedies such as license revocation?

>

>Has anyone banded together to take action or do they think they cannot do anything because the people that want to convert their property have told them so?

esr on 2019-01-06 at 19:59:20 said:

>ESR: Why is no one talking about the CoC anymore, the entryism, and legal remedies such as license revocation?

Lots of people are. Just not right here and right now.

>>1017160

ESR says lots of people are talking (I guess behind closed doors).

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8229#comments

>>1017123

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sfbNB_1546820418:

>this thread has been deleted because of a possible violation of our terms of service

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=CJ7XV_1546819729

>this thread has been deleted because of a possible violation of our terms of service

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=Rtgu_1546819241

>this thread has been deleted because of a possible violation of our terms of service

Why is the video deleted from liveleak within an hour?

>what are archive.org, bitchute, and d.tube

>>1017176

Yes, but why is Live leak deleting the file?

Video: openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: ufile.io/sdhpl

Also thoughts on:

>>1017160

(ESR says lots of people are talking (I guess behind closed doors).)

Thank you for moderating. I just report everything I receive from him as spam.

Thanks

Bruce

On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 7:15 PM <golinux@dyne.org> wrote:

Hi all,

Heads up!

MikeeUSA is trying again but his posts are being held in moderation. So

now he is posting to dng and copying to individual dng members in hopes

that one of you will respond and post his message 2nd hand. Please be

mindful of the headers and do not fall for the bait!

golinux

___________

Dng mailing list

Dng@lists.dyne.org

https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

___________

Dng mailing list

Dng@lists.dyne.org

https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng

>>1017198

(Bruce perens) bruce@perens.com

Any thoughts, news?

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

This thread has quieted down, why? Detractors have not said anything for days...

>>1017255

You have all the answers. There's no possible way that you could be wrong! The perfection of omniscience!

>>1017272

>You have all the answers. There's no possible way that you could be wrong! The perfection of omniscience!

The domain we are speaking of is very limited. Do you really question the ability to learn it?

You do know there are schools that teach these things. You do know that I attended one of them. Beyond that there are volumes on the subjects, and papers on this rather very specific subject.

Or is this a "Magnets, how the fuck do they work" opinion from your class of person?

>>1017272

Explained in your vernacular, refute the points made (using a audio/video with same vernacular):

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

>>1017198

MikeeUSA is my hero! <3

Bump, this needs a bump.

Why can we not upload images of cirno here?

>>1017315

Many thanks.

>>1017281

>Received no response.

>>1017272

Explained in your vernacular, refute the points made (using a audio/video with same vernacular):

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

bump

Updated the video. Learn your rights!

Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

>>1017656

I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )

Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong.

Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing.

It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades said: he's full of shit.

Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken.

The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one of them could shake the tree.

Video:

https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

BUMP!

>>1017656

You are incorrect.

The creators of superman (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster) sold their rights to the character to a firm. There was paid-for consideration, binding them to the terms they agreed on, which was a transfer of copyright.

> In March, they signed a contract in which they released the copyright for Superman to Detective Comics, Inc.[7] The contract for the sale, signed in March 1938, read:

> Dated March 1

>

> I, the undersigned, am an artist or author and have performed work for strip entitled SUPERMAN

>

> In consideration of $130.00 agreed to be paid me by you, I hereby sell and transfer such work and strip, all good will attached thereto and exclusive right to the use of the characters and story, continuity and title of strip contained therein, to you and your assigns to have and hold forever and to be your exclusive property and I agree not to employ said characters by their names contained therein or under any other names at any time hereafter to any other person firm or corporation, or permit the use thereof by said other parties without obtaining your written consent therefor. The intent hereof is to give you exclusive right to use and acknowledge that you own said characters or story and the use thereof, exclusively. I have received the above sum of money.

>

> Sgd. Joe Shuster

> Sgd. Jerome Siegel

> Returned by mail on March 3, 1938[8]

This is a transfer, not a non-exclusive license, and it is for good consideration.

In the case of linux-kernel copyright holders we have no consideration, and a non-exclusive gratuitous license.

Completely different fact pattern.

Explain to me why you mentioned the superman case, please, and how that it proves I'm "not a lawyer".

Video: Linux and license revocation, in American. (Yes you can revoke)

We have noticed that many of you have rejected

the very idea of waddling through long written

soliloquies on the subject.

So, the information in a format that is more

accessible to you has been prepared.

Video: http://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: http://ufile.io/sdhpl

Enjoy.

Note:

>>1017596

>>1017691

has false links, and instead brings you to a video about THE most influential speedrunner of ALL time. You will notice those videos 1) include a video and 2) are 100mb long and 3) are in mpv format.

The actual explanation is, as it always was, here:

Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl

Perhaps I have to cryptographically sign these too...

Notice how the detractors have no refutation left to give, so they try to bury the information.

Uploaded to veoh: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v141917696RbH96XaD

Note: the various cock.li domains are all now filtered from the various mailing lists.

Even if your interpretation of the law is correct, it's irrelevant until someone decides to test out your theory with a lawsuit. Nobody from LKML seems interested in doing so, and I doubt there are even any kernel contributors here.

If you weren't so notoriously obnoxious, people might take you more seriously. I even agree with you about marrying little girls, but I wouldn't bring it up in a discussion like this because it's automatically going to make almost everyone tune me out. Can you just not help the way you behave?

>>1017792

I am not very good at marketing (example: my main libre-vidya project only has 10k+ downloads). That is not my forte'

I can explain the law. I can program. I can make media (maps, music, textures, pixel art, etc etc, 3D, 2D, 1D (text)).

Marketing is not something I am good at.

I would like others to help with that.

My interpretation of the law is correct, however the people on the LKML are believing their peers, who are not lawyers, and a post from PJ from 2005, who is a paralegal (still) and is simply wrong (the "rule" she imagines is for bargained-for commercial licenses, and I know exactly what page of what volume she is getting her information from), or a ZDNet article that cites the same utterance of PJ.

I have explained the how and why of it all, why the FSF has structured things they way the originally did, how the various parts of the law interact, what the foundations are etc.

It doesn't get through.

All I get is "LOL you are not a laywer".

And programmers telling me "pffft, you can't rescind software licenses! it's not allowed!".

As if they know better on this subject.

(or "You should be imprisoned for practicing law without a license")

What to do?

I need help with this campaign.

I've commissioned a explanation in the American vernacular language

http://www.veoh.com/watch/v141917696RbH96XaD

http://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

ESR has indicated that people are talking about the CoC and license rescission, just not publicly. I do not want this topic to go away.

I do not want to be defeated simply by silence and censorship.

>>1017793

I lol as you are not a lawyer.

>>1017796

>I lol as you are not a lawyer.

Why do you believe this. Give your arguments.

>>1017805

You are anonymous. For all I know, you are Russian president robot Vladimir Putin and you're trolling us that you're an American lawyer. The proof I'd like is if you go live on national television with a shoe on your head and exclaim your law practicing status with a reference to this post number. Anything less is just a poser.

>>1017808

I explain in detail the foundations of the operative law and it's application.

This doesn't convince you.

However a shoe on my head would.

Go fuck yourself CoCsucker.

>>1017792

I guess you left. I replied a few min after your post. Why no response? >>1017793

?

>>1017808

>For all I know, you are Russian president robot Vladimir Putin

Putin is a soviet lawyer actually...

esr on 2019-01-08 at 23:39:53 said:

>ESR: The post a few posts above which starts with “Subject Threats of “blackballing” from industry if copyright-holders rescind.” has the links at the end.

Then my thoughts are

(1) It didn’t belong in this post threat.

(2) I think you have a decent factual case. Now, if you could just stop sounding enough like an obsessed crank to be easily written off, you might get somewhere with it.

Reply ↓

evvn on 2019-01-09 at 01:07:43 said:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

>Now, if you could just stop sounding enough like an obsessed crank to be easily written off, you might get somewhere with it.

How do I do that?

Fully explaining the issues and the law is taken as being “an obsessed crank”, doing otherwise would be insufficient.

Not ignoring the issue after a paltry 2 months, again, is “being obsessed”.

Not giving in is “obsessed” and “insane”.

The job of an attorney is to be “obsessed” about a particular case or part of the field. You have to get into the weeds and down to the details to operate, and you have to do so over long time periods. You have to have a counter and an explanation for every point your opponent makes.

This is why briefs are sometimes 100s of pages long (along with all the citations which add another 10s of pages).

Give me some options here. I see none.

I take it that everyone else have simply given up on this issue? They have accepted defeat and simply do not believe me.

The only way that I can get them to believe me is if I explain the entire foundation and basis of the law. I do, and that is obsessed, or they don’t read it because it’s too long, or they bring up irrelevancies, and I have to refute them and explain more of the law (or else the programmers just think I’m wrong).

I can’t win with you guys, can I?

I’m doing this _alone_ and for _free_, again: this is used against me because “obsessed” “crank”.

I’m looking at my bar registration card, my secure pass, and the various volumes of study I’ve consulted regarding this issue (not to mention the cases)… I’m told that I’m “not a lawyer” “lol” by programmers who don’t know a thing about the field

(Note: I too am an OSS programmer, so I know about both fields)

Is anyone talking about rescission, or do they just believe their peers who say it’s wrong because “we’re fellow programmers so know everything, lol guy’s a troll”.?

bump

>>1017812

Going live on tv saying the specific words "I am a lawyer" does nothing to prove you're a lawyer. What would convince me is that you would stop being anonymous in an outstandingly obvious and difficult to forge way. You have to identify yourself along with your bar certification. If your identity is false, that is a clear case of fraud.

>>1017853

And why would I reveal my identity to you and all others?

So you can attempt to get me disbarred because I made endless comments against women and in favor of anti-american religions such as the religion of YHWH (which allows men to have girl children as brides, the opposite of the American belief), and intend to continue to campaign against the heretical beliefs of the enemies of all men on earth. (Americans are the enemies of all men on earth).

I am a licensed attorney. You can read my writings and come to your own conclusions. You should be able to notice how I explain the foundation of the law, and it's application to the fact pattern.

A number of you have already threatened to get me disbarred or imprisoned or doxxed etc etc.

Why would I reveal my identity to satisfy cunt worshiping faggots like yourself?

>>1017860

This only proves that you're a Russian bot!

>>1017860

Dude I'm a lawyer too (there area lot of lawyers on /tech/ btw. way more than programmers btw. it's weird).

The GPLv2 is not rescindable.

Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

>>1017862

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😊🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😃😃🤣🤣🎵🤣😃🤣😃🤣😊🤣😃🤣😊🤣😃

Bump

>>1018100

>No, okay, but can you please cite a law that says I can retroactively take back all the birthday and christmas gifts I've given away in my life? Because I gave that shit away for free.

The key here, idiot, is the words "gift" and "license".

A gift is a transfer of ownership.

A license is permission to use.

Now your second point:

>The only remotely reasonable way to revoke your license would be to play the retard game and say you didn't understand the license

When you decide to distribute your code under a license, you the copyright owner are not accepting the license.

You are extending permission under the terms. You are not bound by the terms.

Only once a contract is finalized are you bound by terms. For a contract to finalize you must be paid something (we call this consideration).

Here you put your property out there, and you said "random fucks, you can use this property".

They must obey your terms, You do not have to obey your terms.

You can just aswell say "random fucks, I am ending the permission I magnanimously extended, the terms are no more". And then they can't use it anymore.

Very simple. And that is the difference between a license (permission) and a gift (transfer of ownership).

You stupid fuck.

The copyright owner can rescind. Those saying you cannot are wrong.

Explained. In american vernacular:

Video: http://www.veoh.com/watch/v141917696RbH96XaD

https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

Audio: http://ufile.io/sdhpl

If you hit a video about a speedrunner: that's the wrong one.

There ain't no speed-runs through the court system.

(People been trying to give you false links, if it ain't a thug negro

rap God tellin' you the in's and outs of licensing, GPLv2, and linux:

sorry man you at the wrong address.)

Remeber: If it is from the streets; you can rest easy regarding the veracity of the information given.

>>1018113

>he is still posting the inferior nigger version

Video: https://openload.co/f/sYuja22Ay8Q/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.webm

Audio: https://uploadfiles.io/6mk2g

interesting, I wonder myself about this

I guess there's a lot of things happening with this, maybe people are just waiting to see where things are going with this

I'd be curious what would happen if a maintainer or even someone from a corp just flat out said something like "this patch does X btw niggerfaggot"

Sure, they can kick that person out, but wouldn't they also want to completely recode everything they ever did too anyway ? That tainted spirutal nazi's ghost code seething with hate whirring inside their computaz

>>1018181

>but wouldn't they also want to completely recode everything they ever did too anyway ?

You think they'd follow their own rules? Rules only count when it benefits them.

>>1018199

>theodore tso didn't sign off on the CoCk

umm sorry, sweatie: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/Documentation/process/code-of-conduct.rst?id=c1d1ba844f01e747aa0272a4ee5c886024cd90eb

>Acked-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>

>>1018212

I never said he did not sign.

>>1018332

>i was only pretending to be retarded

classic

>>1018183

yeah I? was thinking of exploiting it somehow with true believers but this really has gotten to a point where the mask has slipped and the black helicopters are pretty visible

Of course license can be rescinded. Why do you think FSF makes you sign away your copyright? If you're on an country with US IP laws you're already cucked anyway. I wonder what will happen once the copyright on Linux expires who knows how many decades from now. Damn that's gonna be a fun day. GNU itself will probably cease to exist on that day because their software will cease to be free software and become public domain instead. It still boggles my mind how Stallman can be so self righteous while his license is based on something as dishonest as copyright.

bump

>>1018354

In the Copyright Act the authors of the code can rescind after 35 or so years (within a window of time), and this right cannot be bargained away (so says the statute). So 5 years to go for those who hate common law and love only statutory law.

For those who do not have an undying hatred of common law, they can rescind right now under the law of licenses in the US.

>>1018354

>Of course license can be rescinded. Why do you think FSF makes you sign away your copyright?

Thoughts on recovering those copyrights based on a theory of fraudulent misrepresentation and fraud in the inducement?

FSF blatantly lies about the underlying reason for the copyright transfer to induce others to give them said gift.

>>1018347

I posted the image for historical reasons to the why he signed, funny he cucked out on it after. The other anon is kinda retarded he posted the update to the COC not the original but I wouldn't doubt the cucking, "at least I'm not a rape apologist!!!"

>>1018388

>FSF blatantly lies about the underlying reason for the copyright transfer to induce others to give them said gift.

Please elaborate.

>>1018388

>hurr durr i'm a lawyer XDDDDDDDD

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html

https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf

literally kys mikee

>>1018507

Who the fuck is this mikee?

>>1018523

A turboschizo and mudslime enabler who is an embarassment to his country of ancestry and possibly a Jew.

More information:

https://archive.fo/WpjVh

Any news on linus?

>>1018505

The FSF says it needs the copyright transfers so that it has standing to sue and may vigorously defend the GPL etc etc.

With this reasoning it convinces authors to assign* (gift) their code to the FSF (not merely license the code under the GPL etc). The paramount reason that the FSF seeks copyright transfers is to ensure that the owner does not rescind the license. It can perhaps be argued by an author, thusly, that the transfer was induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation that the FSF to the author.

The FSF does keep up appearances, however, and sues one company per decade, and it would use that as a counter-argument that it "really" only wants ownership for it's 1-lawsuit-per-decade hobby.

*To illustrate the difference between a license and a transfer: (since the FSF then owns the code it could do whatever it wanted with it, since it is now the FSF's property, including changing the terms under-which it distributes its property, or even selling the copyright to another entity (which could close the code, revoke licenses, etc))

Author rescinds GPL licensed code from "Geek Feminists"

https://slashdot.org/submission/9076900/author-rescinds-gpl-licensed-code-from-geek-feminists

Since

>>1018164

Has been anchored.

>Actually about a decade-old piece of shit news you brainlet

No it isn't, the revocation of the license happened yesterday.

>Because this is a shitty thread about old news regarding that pedokike.

Nope, the revocation of the "Geek Feminists" license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.

And YES, the author can revoke.

You were asking "Oh if you can do it, go an do it".

Now it has been done, and let it be noted that you shut your mouth suddenly.

The last time a revocation of a GPL licensed work happened, it was a blanket-world-wide revocation (differing from this revocation from a small number of people) and the distros DID stop distributing the affected piece of software.

The license is a gratuity, with no interest attached. It can be rescinded by the grantor. Just as you can kick a guest out of your property that has worn out their welcome (you gave them license (permission) to occupy, and now you are rescinding that license), you can do the same regarding other property.

Notice: can't make new threads because faggot admin has shadowbanned tor users. Fuck you admin.

>>1018521

>Teh loli doesn't fit

>They must acquit rescind

Since RMS has turned his back on loli, (has been "rethinking" his previous stance), there is not one non-feminist "free software visionary" around anymore. They are all anti-man+girl. All enemies of the law of YHWH, and the city should be burned to ash just like sodom was when not one good person was found in the city.

>>1018725

>Reportedly

>>1018726

More like fuck you:

>>>/metatech/

>>1018732

I did rescind the license, yesterday

--MikeeUSA--

Not "reportedly" anymore.

(Spread the news so we may be sure the geek feminists have notice)

>>1018530

>A turboschizo and mudslime enabler who is an embarassment to his country of ancestry and possibly a Jew.

If "mudslime"s enable you to have cute young girls as brides, why not enable the "mudslime"s?

"Oh these people will help my interests"! "Got to hate them"

Makes no sense.

>The author appears to have significant biases in regards to the game itself, making the maps intentionally unbalanced, apparently. It is essentially impossible for spellcasters to get through many of the maps, due to excessive blocking of spells for no legitimate reason.

If you allow spellcasting everywhere, players just charmkill all the monsters. Even level 100+ monsters. (cast charm monster, then kill all pets)

>>1018736

Thanks for your admission.

For the last time, can you please stop spamming this board?

>>1018740

>not knowing /pol/ lingo

>at all

>>1018746

It's my right to rescind the permission I extended.

I have done so.

You speak as if me controlling my property is a criminal act.

And to you people, perhaps it is.

If the "geek feminists" wanted a secured interest, they would have to pay for one.

>>1018746

"mudslime" isn't even /pol/, jihadwatch was using it a decade before 4chan's /pol/ existed. Though they were anti-muslim, jihadwatch really just showed everyone how great the muslims are: marrying cute young girls, ruling over de wimmin, and all that.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/af4vrp/author_rescinds_gpl_licensed_code_from_geek/

https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/af62lx/author_rescinds_gpl_licensed_code_from_geek/

>>1018800

yes, please fuck off to reddit and don't come back

>>1018804

>yes, please fuck off to reddit and don't come back

Why should I obey your request? You are an enemy of mine.

Give your reasons. You failed in the "lol u can't rescind" debate.

No you just tell me to "fuck off"? That's all you got? Faggot.

>>1018654

>>1018675

Many thanks.

>The maps are, in general, very unstable, in ways that can require DM intervention. I stopped exploring mikeeusa's maps after schmorp had to help me continually due to an insidious timer bug that kept trapping me in a prison,

That wasn't a bug.

thoughts?

>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"

--Lawrence Rosen

>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.

--Lawrence Rosen

>p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest is revocable."

--Lawrence Rosen

Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law

>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:

>...

>The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."

--Lawrence Rosen

Did anything actually happen with the geek feminism thing? Has anyone who isn't mikeUSA actually written about this. Because the few places I do see people talking about this are usually on imagebaords, and the threads are all written the same way. And even if someone did rescind the license, has anything tangible actually resulted from this? Or did geek feminism just ignore him.

>>1018725

>The last time a revocation of a GPL licensed work happened, it was a blanket-world-wide revocation (differing from this revocation from a small number of people) and the distros DID stop distributing the affected piece of software.

which?

>>1019308

I don't know what could happen, really. Mikee rescinded the license for his code from a pretty amorphous entity, which he can't even refer to consistently. He sometimes calls them the "Geek Feminism collective" or the "Geek Feminists," or various other spellings and capitalizations. As far as I can tell, that's not some entity like a non-profit organization or something that's actually identifiable. It's just a defunct blog (last post 8 months ago, and it appears there won't be any more) and an out-of-date wiki in "archival mode."

>The Geek Feminism Wiki is effectively in archival mode. New accounts are restricted from editing due to vandalism, and we do not have the volunteer labor available to whitelist new accounts and monitor activity. The content of the wiki (most of which was written between 2009 and 2012) likely reflects many undesirable biases, such as racism and ableism [kekworthy emphasis mine]

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki

https://geekfeminism.org/ (the defunct blog)

Apparently, they did host and redistribute one of Mikee's programs at one time as a joke or some kind of lame trolling attempt, but they stopped doing so in 2014: https://geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/mikeeusas-code-now-available-on-geekfeminism-org/

So, basically, a mentally ill person has told an amorphous group of mostly pseudonymous mentally ill people who used to contribute to a now-defunct blog and wiki that they can't use his code anymore, except they don't appear to have had anything to do with it for 5 years anyway. In other words,

IT'S

FUCKING

NOTHING

>>1019308

mikeeusa is the author of the code, and owner of the copyright.

Who else do you imagine would be the one rescinding the license?

>"Oh it's just mikeeusa saying this, he's just the copyright owner, no biggie"

>>1019384

The geek feminists give their names, they are absolutely identifiable, and they've had their license revoked.

The point is to illustrate the ability of the copyright holder to rescind. A power the non-corporate linux devs have aswell.

>>1019328

The author of the ATSC capture and edit tool.

You won't find his program in distros anymore, they quietly complied and removed it. It was a world-wide blanket revocation.

The "reasoning" why "that doesn't count" is that he "disappeared from the opensource community and hasn't been heard since" according to the legally-challenged.

>>1019393

>The geek feminists give their names

Then you should have used them.

>The point is to illustrate the ability of the copyright holder to rescind.

You've illustrated nothing. You've demanded that some group which may not even meaningfully exist anymore stop doing something which they may not even be doing anymore. Where's their response to you? Post it.

>Then you should have used them.

Not necessary, the language used in the press release identifies them easily.

>should

As if I somehow can't just rescind using their names either.