/tech/ - Technology★

>Then lol okay. If you want to peddle this to (((MSM))) then lol okay.

Assistance would be appreciated. The point of rescinding the license from the "geek feminists" is to show that it can be done. That it is a feature of the law of licenses in the US.

>Enjoy your shoah for attempting to shitting this board and for shilling your shit in several more imageboards.

Help that flaming happen by spreading the news.

New url that clarifies that the rescission happened just this week,

https://slashdot.org/submission/9084886/author-rescinds-gpld-code-from-geek-feminists

> Help that flaming happen by spreading the news.

I repeat, on mainstream media around the world.

t. not OP

>>1018747

> > Help that flaming happen by spreading the news.

>I repeat, on mainstream media around the world.

>t. not OP

How? Can't do it alone.

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/af4vrp/author_rescinds_gpl_licensed_code_from_geek/

>>1018769

>but you almost never see a single volunteer becoming de facto dictator and waving their dick around; anyone who did would find themselves without any activity before long.

Wat? Who is (((var-g)))

>>1018764

Got [removed]

Why are they trying to censor the story?

>>1018769

https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/af62lx/author_rescinds_gpl_licensed_code_from_geek/

>>1018799

Censored.

>>1018801

Mind reposting it with one of the accounts you control.

Anything I post is deleted, anything I email is flagged as spam.

I cannot get the message out, I'll post the full text in the next post.

(Author rescinds GPL licensed code from "Geek Feminists")

(Author rescinds GPL'd code from "Geek Feminists")

Reportedly, the author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.

The original author, after years of silence, notes that the "Geek Feminist" changed[1] a bunch of if-then statements which were preceded by a loop waiting for string input to a switch statement. The author reportedly noted that to use a switch statement in such an instance is no more preformant than the if-thens. Switch statements should be used where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a successive nature, for most efficient use of the jump table that is generated from said code.

The author reportedly was offended, after quiet observation of the group, that the "Geek Feminists" mocked his code, mocked his existence as a male, and never did any work on the code afterwards and never updated to include new slot machines added to the original code by author subsequently.

The author notes that he neither sought nor received any compensation for the granted license, that is was a gratuitous license, and that there never was any refutation of his default right to rescind given. (A right founded in the property law of licenses.)

The copyright owner has reportedly watched quietly as each year the "Geek Feminists" published a recount of their heroic efforts regarding his code.[2][3] Presumably he has now had enough of it all...

The author notes that the SF Conservancy attempts to construe a particular clause in the GPL version 2 license text as a "no revocation by grantor clause", however that clause states that if a licensee suffers and automatic-revocation by operation of the license, that licensees down stream from him do not suffer the same fate. The author of "GPC-Slots 2" reportedly notes that said clause does only what it claims to do: clarifies that a downstream licensee, through no fault of his own, is not penalized by the automatic revocation suffered by a licensee he gained a "sub-license" from (for lack of a better term.)

The author reportedly notes that version 3 of the GPL did not exist when he published the code, additionally the author notes that even if there was a clause not to revoke, he was paid no consideration for such a forbearance of a legal right of his and thus said clause is not operative against him, the grantor, should it exist at all.

(Editor's note: GPL version 3 contains an explicit "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, in addition to a term-of-years that the license is granted for. Both absent in version 2 of the GPL)

The author reportedly has mulled an option to register his copyright and then to seek damages from the "Geek Feminists" if they choose to violate his copyright post-hence.

(Editors note: Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can amount to $150,000 plus attorney's fees for post registration violations of a differing nature to pre-registration violations.)

[1]https://geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/

[2]https://geekfeminism.org

[3]http://geekfeminism.wikia.com

GPC-Slots 2 is a text console mode casino game available for linux with various slot machines, table games, and stock market tokens for the player to test his luck. For the unlucky there is a Russian Roulette function.

[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]

Addendum: Statements from the program author:

"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."

"I did rescind the license, yesterday"

If the news gets out, it may edify the linux programmers who still own their copyrights, and show them that they can, indeed, rescind.

Last time someone rescinded, it was news on Slashdot, and the distros did indeed remove the software (it was a world-wide blanket rescission, not a targeted on as here).

This can be a nucleus of debate, to teach the linux copyright holders their legal rights, and have them talk to their lawyers.

But I just /cannot/ get the message out. My post are just flagged and deleted no matter what. I need your help.

>>1018799

I don't have a plebbit account, sorry.

>>1018810

Submissions to any outlet would do, also suggestions.

I've emailed theregister, lwn, linux.com, meta this and that,

posted to 7chan, lainchan, tinychan, endchan

and slashdot.

Can't post to 4chan as all proxies banned (could you?)

https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/general-discussion/1072560-author-rescinds-gpl-licensed-code-from-geek-feminists

A commentor appeared on lainchan:

https://lainchan.org/%CE%A9/res/15162.html#15168

>Unknown 2019-01-12 11:25:17 No.15165

>git log: https://web.archive.org/web/20091023051114/http://code.geekfeminism.org/mikeeusa

>

>Some commits are not archived. I checked out changeset 6:5559dbba769c (Removed anti-women's-rights easter egg.) I was surprised to find that description is accurate. Note from a Debian 2009 ML archive, https://lists.debian.org/debian-women/2009/10/msg00011.html it truly does seem he harassed people. At this point I think fair use could come into play, but the whole thing seems petty to me.

>>1018798

Because they don't want anyone getting ideas that could destroy the stronghold they worked so hard to build.

How many posts are from Mikee?

>>1018867

His style of writing is pretty distinguishable from other posts.

>>1018881

>expecting me to read the posts of a mikee thread

mods why don't you fucking delete mikee threads??????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D23mYwPkdyw

>>1018729 (OP)

post about the censorship on techmeta. this is very common because the main mod is a communist.

>>1018885

>the cuckening

>>1018886

>bumplocking duplicate threads by mikeeusa about an article written by mikeusa that isn't disclosed anywhere is censorship

b

>>1018887

> isn't disclosed anywhere is censorship

It is disclosed elsewhere, it just gets deleted EVERYWHERE

See I have the right to rescind the license under the US law regarding licenses.

So do the linux kernel contributors.

>>1018863

How to show that their hold was built on sand?

https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/afcvn6/author_recinds_gpl_slashdot/

https://www.reddit.com/r/tech/comments/afd0es/author_recinds_gpl_slashdot/

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/afd56g/author_recinds_gpl_slashdot/

https://www.reddit.com/r/devops/comments/afd9q0/author_rescinds_gpl/

TLDR? I don't follow the soy.

>>1018986

The crux is: a gratuitous license (which the GPL is) without an attached interest is revocable in the US. The author can (and has) chosen to make use of his rights. The same is applicable to the linux-kernel: the copyright owners there (the programmers) each can revoke license to their code, say, if they are displeased with the CoC and being ruled over by non-programmers.

If you would like a more in-depth discussion:

http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf

(With full citations).

(PDF attached)

Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.

Page 16 gives the rundown on all the ways the GPL is not a contract.

---

For the past 2 years every FOSS programmer, except ESR has contested it. Vehemently.

Yet they complain about the "CoC" up their ass.

I explain to them in detail the foundation of the law and their options: revoke the fucking license. No one paid you a dime, or any consideration whatsoever: you simply put the code out there under this gratuitous license. Here are some papers that argue the same point. Meet with other like-minded programmers and do a bloc rescission. If your code is re-implemented, sue for infringement and cite the recent Oracle vs Google case amongst others.

"nooo ur wrong, irrevocable, not lawyer, liar, going to get you locked up for practicing law without license, going to get you disbarred, hate this CoC tho, can do nothing tho!!! fuck you!!! LARPR" etc

----

So here we have an actual GPL rescission, to illustrate the point to the linux programmers.

Some discussion is happening here: https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/afd56g/author_recinds_gpl_slashdot/

And:

https://lainchan.org/%CE%A9/res/15180.html#15234

>>1018769

>but you almost never see a single volunteer becoming de facto dictator and waving their dick around

Fuck off newfag

>>1018987

I'm much more willing to trust Sapna Kumar than to trust a LARPer like yourself.

Apparently other programmers on lainchan declared that I was having my "ass handed to me" and then deleted the thread.

level 4

earthforce_1

1 point ·

1 hour ago

I have submitted code both under closed source and GPL, while I was an employee. A lot of my GPL code (written with the blessing of and while being paid by my employer) is still being used years later.

Let me make it simple. If you decided after submitting code with a particular licencse you want to change your mind that is your right and priviege. Anything you do after that date falls under the new licence, although if others have submitted code patches under the old license and disagree, you are going to have a messy time. They retain ownership of their contributions and you can't arbitrarily take ownership of everything and screw them out of their code. Like it or not, that's how it works. They still own what they submitted.

Also, if you agreed to a license term in the past, everything you have done up to that point is bound by that license. If you submitted code to Microsoft as a contractor or employee, you are bound to whatever license terms you agreed to when you signed the license contract. I know and accept that code I am writing for my employer is owned by my employer, and even though I wrote it I can't arbitrarily change licence terms now or in the future.

Even if you did not pay for a license, you are still bound by its terms. Open source licenses have been upheld in courts of many countries and even fortune 500 companies respect and abide by them. I know because I have worked for them and we have extensive training on the use and upstream submission of open source code. Woe to any company, even large ones who incorporates GPL source in a closed product and tries to sell it as your own. I have worked for many large tech companies and they all respect the GPL terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation,_Inc._v._Cisco_Systems,_Inc.

companies have made a business out of reviewing code bases for open source license compliance. I have used their software on many occasions with company legal departments to review FOSS license compliance.

https://www.blackducksoftware.com/black-duck-home

They would not exist if corporations did not take open source license terms seriously. Whine all you want about it, but this is reality. No, I am not a lawyer but I am certain you are not either from the nonsense you post. And I have worked as a developer in this area so I do know something of what I am talking about. Rescind any time you want, but the code you pushed yesterday is still subject to the old licensing terms that you cannot retroactivly change. And if you have not written 100% of the code, portions of it are still under the old license terms under the other authors alter their licenses as wll. It's out there forever. At whatever license existed at the time of publication. No court will allow you to retroactively change a license or contract.

>>1019024

>I have submitted code both under closed source and GPL, while I was an employee. A lot of my GPL code (written with the blessing of and while being paid by my employer) is still being used years later.

When you are an employee, your code is a "Work for hire", and owned by your employeer. So indeed: You cannot revoke.

(Note: if you were an independent contractor, however, and there was no written transfer, you may still own your code - so think back - it could help you out)

See section 101 and 201 of the copyright act for more details.

Here, Author was not an employee nor an independent contractor. He simply wrote code, and put it out there, the permission to others being the text of the GPL.

He still owns his code. He can rescind the gratuity.

So can thousands of the linux-kernel programmers.

> They retain ownership of their contributions and you can't arbitrarily take ownership of everything and screw them out of their code. Like it or not, that's how it works. They still own what they submitted.

Let me make it simple to you, fuck-face programmer. GPC-Slots 2 was written from scratch by Author.

You understand that.

Later a small amount of code was added for the -2 option (split the reels from the fronts) by another Contributor.

The original code is owned by Author.

The -2 code is owned by Contributor.

Author can and has recinded the license from the Geek Feminists regarding original code.

Author doesn't claim ownership of the small -2 function, never has.

(And it may not have been in the Geek Feminist's forked version).

Author now and forever OWNS the code he wrote. He never transfered it, he never signed it away.

Contributor does not own Author's code. Author does not claim ownership of Contributor's code.

Furthermore, the -2 code and the vast Original code are seperable:

The -2 code is basically a library function. You can easily use it in any other game.

Author did NOT AGREE to any terms.

Author WROTE THE FUCKING PROGRAM FROM __nothing__.

YYYOOOUUU and CONTRIBUTOR and GEEKFEMINISTS and WHOMEVER are the ones who FOLLOW terms regarding Author's code

(and if you do not follow them, it's copyright infringement and you are sued).

Now for the -2 function, the Contributor has not rescinded license for that.

So GeekFeminists can take the -2 function, then build an entire different text mode Casino Game

with it included, and that function will make it easy to put on one of those IGT dual displays

(reels inback) you see in casinos.

And yes, I AM a Lawyer, weather you want to believe it or not. You DO NOT know the law.

1) Author owns his code. GPC-Slots 2 was written from scratch by Author. Author was not an employee work-for-hire. He owns his code you fucking wageslave white boy piece of filth.

2) Contributors to the linux kernel who own their copyrights (many thousands) _CAN_ revoke the licenses to use the code they wrote. They still own that property. They licensed it, they did not transfer it.

3) There is NO contract. This is a GRATUITOUS LICENSE. "Hey you can use my property for... nothing!". Gratuitous licenses are revocable at the will of the grantor.

>>1019022

>I'm much more willing to trust Sapna Kumar than to trust a LARPer like yourself.

Defeat my legal arguments, you piece of shit.

The fact is a gratuitous license is revocable by the grantor.

That is the law.

Defeat the argument?

Saying "I don't trust the source" is not a defeat.

Here's some other programmers for you, maybe you'll trust them:

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14556917

> dragonwriter on June 14, 2017 [-]

>Well, except that gratuitous licenses are (irrespective of their surface terms) revocable at will. Promissory estoppel may mitigate, in some way, the effect of such revocation against people who took action in reliance on a promise of nob-revocation before or without knowledge of the subsequent revocation, but it is far from clear that the Free version will always be free; license terms don't override the governing law.

>

>(Now if there is a Free version under a contracted-for rather than gratuitous license, that's a bit more secure, though there are ways that could go away, too.)

>>1019024

Notice how the wageslaves grope around in the dark "well if this then corps wouldn't take OSS licenses seriously" and "I'm an employee and I know I can't rescind because my employeer owns my code"

No legal arguments whatsoever, but they are //SURE// they are right and I am wrong.

This thread is why FOSS is such shit, has always been such, and will always be such.

>>1019029

FOSS is such shit because the men are eager to be ruled over by women.

FOSS is such shit because the men white men (aka: faggots).

>>1019030

Ethnicity has little to do with it I'm afraid. Environment, upbringing and indoctrination more than anything.

>>1019030

Of course, most programmers are foreveralones and would sell themselves for a chance to be near a vagina.

>>1019033

In most of the world, men have access to government regulated prostitutes. For this reason, it should not be difficult to get vaginal sex.

>level 3

>earthforce_1

>2 points ·

>2 hours ago

>· edited 2 hours ago

>

>Ad hominem already? It has worked many times whether you like it or not. And the GPL has been upheld in many countries including the US. If you change your mind about license terms you are of course free to do so, but you can't make it retroactive to past releases. It's like playing Darth Vader: "I am alerting our deal... Pray I do not alter it further"

>

>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170515/06040337368/us-court-upholds-enforceability-gnu-gpl-as-both-license-contract.shtml

>>1019040

We have 2 responses for this, here is the first:

Yes you can.

What did YOU pay for the license?

Nothing.

It is a gratuity.

Gratuitous licenses are revocable at will.

"I am alerting our deal... Pray I do not alter it further"

THERE IS NO FUCKING DEAL. YOU DID NOTHING ON YOUR END.

WHY CAN'T YOU GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD"

"You have permission to use this property" is NOT a deal.

It is a gratuitous ALLOWANCE that can be ENDED and then YOU CAN NO LONGER USE THE CODE.

How about a well cited paper vs some tech news rag:

https://www.docdroid.net/U3tJZmq/kumar-gpl-licenses.pdf

Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.

Page 16 ever more relevant

>>1019040

Second response:

You're just a fucking moron.

The case you cited enforced the preliminary writing that said "chose gpl or pay us" as the contract, on the Biz website. It enforced it against the licensee. That preliminary writing: which itself is a offer to do business which the licensee accepted. And then the licensee violated BOTH that preliminary writing (the contract) AND the GPL (because why not go 2 for 2).

That is wholly different where the GPL stands alone, no offer to do business, no preliminary writing to accept.

Secondly it is the _LICENSEE that is being penalized here. The LICENSEE does NOT have ANY rights to the software absent the Owner's permission.

The owner is NOT bound by the terms of the license. He EXTENDS the terms.

It's his FUCKING property. He is saying: here's how you can use my stuff for free.

No consideration there.

Now, if you he allows you to PAY him, then you can say "oh we made a K, so we're mutually bound, since he got his money (consideration)".

In the cited case the Licensee, when given the option to do business (an offer), decided to accept that offer... and then decided to violate it. He neither payed the commercial amount, nor abided by the GPL: which were the options the biz gave. So he could be found liable for contract damages under the preliminary writing (pay us), or Copyright violation damages under the GPL.

Understand you FUCKING retard?

>>1019032

It's always white men who are the woman worshiping faggots.

Who banned child brides? Proud American and English Civilized White Men.

Who bombs anyone that still allows child brides? Proud American and English Civilized White Men.

Who started Feminism? Englishmen in the 1800s (well this time around).

It's always been whites.

Black men don't give a _FUCK_ about the civilized law. Neither do Arabs. Neither do Italians.

Only whites.

Who accepts the CoC? Proud American White men.

Who shouts me down every time I painstakingly explain the law, the foundation of said law, and then all the cases they bring up..

White faggots. They want to be dominated by white women. They don't want anyone to have anything that might challenge the dominion of the white woman.

>>1019032

Who says Author can't rescind license of the code that he owns and created from GeekFeminists?

White wageslave men.

One of their arguments was "I don't own my code because I am an employee, therefore Author cannot revoke".

Author isn't a wageslave faggot...

>>1019045

>>1019044

Your buttfrustration amuses me

>>1019045

i'm not saying your're wrong but Torvalds was originally Finnish before he became a USA cuck.

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69340337/author-rescinds-gpl-licensed-code-from-geek

Thanks to whomever posted this.

>>1019044

>>1019045

>>>/pol/

>>1019045

Preach sister

╔══════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══════════════╗

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Repost this if ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ you are a beautiful strong black woman ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ who don’t need no man ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

╚══════════════ ೋღ☃ღೋ ══════════════╝

>>1019044

niggers also don't know how to use computers so who the fuck cares what they think

For people that dont speak excellent English, what does this mean

>>1019025

>the US has a special provision making all licenses and transfers of rights by authors under copyright revocable by written notice, during a 5 year window 35 years from when they occurred; see 17 USC Sec. 203.

>The provisions of section 203 safeguard[] authors against unremunerative transfers. A provision of this sort is needed because of the unequal bargaining position of authors, resulting in part from the impossibility of determining a work’s value until it has been exploited.

>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

>>1019292

b-but he has an interest in showcasing it as projects for future works.

b-but he's a white heterosexual male with an interest in atoning for guilt.

>>1019298

Could you do a favor and spread the news, and this is news (last revocation of was in 2008), so that the non-corporate linux devs may be edified regarding their legal education.

>>1019396

>(last revocation of was in 2008)

(ATSC capture and edit tool )

>>1018769

>Only on plebbit can entirely ordinary communities get taken over by a couple of faggots with zero recourse.

Newfag.

>but you almost never see a single volunteer becoming de facto dictator and waving their dick around

Double newfag.

>>1019440

Plebbit loves to delete every story one posts... very annoying

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/ag76kd/author_rescinds_gpl_license_from_geek_feminists/

finally got it through

>>1019736

>[removed]

why can't our mods be this based?

>>1019738

just stay on reddit if you like it so much

reddit is trash.

https://slashdot.org/submission/9098318/author-announces-gpl-license-recission-on-8chan

Background info: https://slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52

Now try Hacker News and email your favorite mainstream news websites

>>1020401

They shadow ban all proxies, I have emailed all the tech news sites.

I cannot do it alone.

Like a turd that just won't be flushed, this thread keeps floating up to the top.

You might be right about this stuff about rescinding licenses, Mikee. I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. Then again, neither are you, in spite of your protests to the contrary.

Your so-called rescinding of the license to your slots program from the "Geek Feminists" is laughable, though. As far as I can tell, they're not distributing your code anymore, and they haven't for years. The way in which you think you've informed them of your rescission (sperging out on various pseudonymous and anonymous fora) is truly cringeworthy. I'd be surprised if any of them had even heard of the supposed rescission.

Even if they had heard, and even if they were still hosting it, their most likely response would be to shrug and rm -rf your code. Because they think you have a case? No, because deleting the code would be simpler than responding to a lawsuit, and because they don't actually care about your code. They were only ever hosting it as a joke, Mikee. Granted, women aren't funny, so it wasn't a good joke, but the point is that they never took it seriously. So, even if they were still hosting your code (but I don't think they are) and even if they had heard of your rescinding the license (but I don't think they have), they would likely comply, which would prove nothing but that they don't want to deal with you. That tells us nothing useful, because nobody wants to deal with you, not even most of the people here, who have a high tolerance for shenanigans.

Whatever the merits of your legal claims, almost nobody is going to take you seriously because of the way you conduct yourself. Is that fair? Perhaps not. But it's reality. The merits (or lack thereof) of your legal claims are separate from the fact that you shit up every place you go with insane rambling, spamming the same quotes and text over and over, and going off on tangents about fucking little girls. But most people--including most Linux kernel contributors who might otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective and might hate the CoC--are going to be so repulsed by you that they won't have any interest in hearing what you have to say.

>>1021488 (fucking checked)

This is the best post on this board tbh.

It completely dismantles Mikee with facts and logic with a post number ending with 1488.

You, sir, win the Internet. Enjoy the reddit gold :)

>>1020401

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18952152

>>1021488

>and going off on tangents about fucking little girls.

If you are opposed to men taking young girls as brides you are a heritic against YHWH and should be killed as such.

>But most people--including most Linux kernel contributors who might otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective and might hate the CoC--are going to be so repulsed by you that they won't have any interest in hearing what you have to say.

Most white men worship women, what else is new. If they are repulsed by the thought of marrying cute young girls, and attracted to the though of being dominated by a orange woman and her police state, the one solace we can have is that they will be extinct soon enough.

>>1021488

>Then again, neither are you, in spite of your protests to the contrary.

I'm a licensed attorney. And no I won't show you my bar registration card nor my secure pass.

>>1021566

Nice self sage, you even waited a few hours for effect (even though the thread would be off the front page by then), the anti self bump.

>Even if they had hea

They still held a license, regardless. Now they do not.

The point is that freely given permission can be freely revoked.

The linux devs can do the same. Those that are not cunt-sucking white men.

>>1021786

>I'm a licensed attorney.

Pics or didn't happen you nigger, how new are you?

>>1021786

>Nice self sage, you even waited a few hours for effect (even though the thread would be off the front page by then), the anti self bump.

???

I saged by accident.

Three simple words send squatters into a frothing rage

>GPL is revocable

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69460068

One highlight:

http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69460068

> Anonymous 01/21/19(Mon)11:54:18 No.69461133 ▶>>69461171 >>69461196 >>69461369

>

> >>69460325

> >>69460419

> >>69461077

> We will keep archiving these threads and eventually we will have proof. Hopefully a mod will oust you via IP logs or something of the like in a few weeks. Sage in all fields btw, I'm not contributing to your little circlejerk. You just need a nice big black cock in your face.

>>1018729 (OP)

>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 is basically revoking the contract only to specific offerees. As long as that is communicated the same way the offer was made originally, there shouldn't be too much of an issue, ASSUMING consideration wasn't provided in some implied way, such as through developing the software and the grantor allowing that development to modify their product.

What happens when the person, who developed the software that contributed to this product, revokes his GPL though?

That would mean there are problems inherent in GPL as a thing entirely, largely due to the lack of certainty of what the product is and who contributed to it.

>>1020377

The GPL cannot function with any revokability to be honest. So it's dead as a valid form of contract.

>>1021786

>I'm a licensed attorney. And no I won't show you my bar registration card nor my secure pass.

Then you're not an attorney. I'm not interested in the spurious claims of a mentally ill anon on an anonymous imageboard. In addition, I doubt that anyone with your lack of discipline and your obsessive-compulsive behavior could ever pass the bar anyway.

>>1022002

based

Archived 4chan discussion: https://warosu.org/g/thread/S69460068

>>1022002

>>I'm a licensed attorney. And no I won't show you my bar registration card nor my secure pass.

>Then you're not an attorney.

Here, sageanon posits the theom that those who do not auto-"dox" themselves cannot be an attorney.

An interesting theorem...

> I'm not interested in the spurious claims of a mentally ill anon on an anonymous imageboard.

Here sage-anon posits the theorem that he is the only true "person" in the universe and that all things revolve around his existence: thus if "he" is not interested, that thing need not be at all...

An interesting theorem. Many small children hold fast to the same.

> In addition, I doubt that anyone with your lack of discipline and your obsessive-compulsive behavior could ever pass the bar anyway.

Obsessive-compulsion is just what one needs to pass the Bar. You'd know if you ever studied for it...

>>1021851

>>1021849

>cuckchan

>>1022050

>An interesting theorem...

Stop pretending you don't understand.

You know very well anyone can claim to be anything on the internet.

Stop posting anytime, faggot.

>>1021786

>I'm a licensed attorney. And no I won't show you my bar registration card nor my secure pass.

I'm an astronaut, posting this from the space station

What do you think of the so-called blackpillfags such as >>1022317 & >>1022326 ?

>>1022083

Great, tell us something we didn't already know.

>>1021786

I'm Bill Gates. I live under the earth and have more money than I know what to do with. I don't need to prove anything.

Convenient contingent of collected links: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/23/316

>>1022331

They are correct

>We are history's greatest losers. We will never have another victory again. Just 10,000 years of darkness. At minimum. With nothing left to live for,

"White" men banned child brides 100 years ago. White bois have nothing to live for. are slaves to women. Thanks gramps!

>>1022417 Girls who start their periods are not children. They can reproduce their offsprings so they are adults by biology.

Biologists divide animals to children and adults by their reproduction abilities.

>>1022083 Is she/he a transvestite or a transgender?

>>1022525

>10000 proud white nationalists want to torture you to death now

So, the man pulled his license based on alleged harassment over the internet. Boo-fucking-hoo. Everyone's up in arms when some tranny does this kind of crybaby shit, so why is such a thin-skinned attention whore tactic suddenly being defended?

>>1023062

Turnabout is fair play.

>>1023062

Quote literally one post that isn't from Mikee and is in favor of this.

Protip: Mikee is a LARPer

>>1023161

https://www.reddit.com/r/devops/comments/afd9q0/author_rescinds_gpl/

>That being said, sounds like those people were bullies based on OP description and I support the author revoking their work. There’s nothing more disingenuous than heckling a volunteer. Their posts are not amusing to me.

>

>It’s people like that we need a code of conduct (containing even more legalese) for something that should just be common sense but does not appear common enough. Respect others and treat them in a way you wish to be treated. A point which seems lost by their disconnect between mission statement and action.

>>1023161

Doesn't matter how many people are or are not in favor.

The revocation is as-of-right.

Doesn't need your approval, faggot piece of mother fucking shit.

>>1023266

You can't revoke, though :^)

>>1023661

>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

----

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

>>1023661

>You can't revoke, though :^)

Yes I can, and have.

It is MY property. NOT YOURS.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOUR LICENSE IS REVOKED.

Infact, you, whomever you are: Your license is revoked.

You paid me nothing, there is not contract between you and I.

It is a bare license, without an attached interest.

You're license is revoked, and I will sue you if you modify, use, or distribute the game.

Understand >>1023661

>>1023699

oh no no no

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

>>1024328

Ca$h Money

>>1024316

And now you're violating copyright law, if you're the same "John Doe" etc.

And if I ever find out who you are, I will sue you.

>>1024328

compiles better ;^)

>>1024380

do it faggot

protip: you can't

>>1024379

How am I violating copyright law? The code is licensed under the GPLv2+. I don't think I'm violating any requirements. If I do please tell me and I'll fix it.

>>1024316

Probably same 8channer who made the fake account on linux game data base. I guess I could try to get discovery from them...

>>1024384

Yes I can. The code is MY property, NOT yours, and I have rescinded permission to modify, make derivative works, and redistribute it FROM you (assuming you are the same John Doe). I can sue you for copyright.

IF... I can find out who you are (well I could sue "John Doe" and try to find out in discovery)

>>1024382

You're still a moron. That is also a spot where a switch statement would be pointless. You could count the "string length", but that would take more computational time since PERL would have to convert it to a string, then count, rather than just comparing an int.

>>1024390

Your license was rescinded by author.

You did not author anything, so you cannot hold him to the "terms".

In the USA he can and has rescinded permission from you.

>>1024390

*(You did not pay author anything, so you cannot hold him to the "terms".)

(There is no contract between you and him)

>>1024390

1) I rescind your permission to modify, make derivative works, distribute the program. The GPL license you "have" been granted from me, is revoked.

2) you are impersonating me.

>>1024391

>Probably same 8channer who made the fake account on linux game data base.

Not me. I just made the Github repo. Do you like the CoC btw :^)

>>1024395

>Your license was rescinded by author.

You can't :^)

I'm not taking it down.

>>1024396

>#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or

>#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

>#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2

>#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

>>1024398

>1) I rescind your permission to modify, make derivative works, distribute the program. The GPL license you "have" been granted from me, is revoked.

You can't.

>2) you are impersonating me.

I'm not.

>>1024328

>what is log10

jesus christ mikee. you are a LARPer after all.

>>1024379

>>1024380

>>1024391

>>1024395

>>1024396

>>1024398

>seething

>>1024391

>Yes I can.

You can't, or you would have already done so.

Instead you try to act tough on the internet.

Pathetic.

>You could count the "string length"

The highly educated """lawyer""" doesn't know about log10, who could have guessed?

This isn't even LARPing, it's something beyond all known autism.

Mikee hasn't posted for more than 30 minutes. I'm getting hopeful tbh. Has he left 8chan?

Please let it be so.

YES I CAN AND HAVE RESCINDED THE LICENSE FROM THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED PEOPLE.

IT IS MY FUCKING PROPERTY.

I DID NOT TRANSFER THE COPYRIGHT.

I CAN AND HAVE RESCINDED LICENSE FROM "John Doe" AND THE "Geek Feminists" (etc).

>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

----

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

>>1024400

I rescind the license from you.

I am going to sue you if I find out who you are.

>>1024400

>#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or

>#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

>#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2

>#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

That is permission. It flows from me, NOT the file.

I am the owner of the GPC-Slots2 game code.

The previously given permission has been revoked from you.

A license, absent an interest, is revocable.

You have paid me nothing. I can and I have rescinded the license from you and am not granting you any others.

You are not violating my copyright, should you continue to redistribute/modify/etc.

That's how it works in the USA.

>>1024405

Might waste more cycles than the compares.

*You are now violating my copyright, should you continue to redistribute/modify/etc.

>>1024586

>>1024588

>>1024589

I can't even imagine being this bootyblasted.

>#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or

>#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

>#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2

>#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

You can't rescind this :^)

>>1024591

>Might waste more cycles than the compares.

You know that gpcslots2 is written in perl, right?

>>1024592

sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD

Protip: you won't because you're a LARPer

>>1024593

YES I CAN.

HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?

NOTHING.

ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?

NO.

IT IS A BARE LICENSE.

I __CAN__ RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME. AND I HAVE FROM YOU YOU FUCKING PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT.

THE CODE IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS _MY_ PROPERTY.

I CAN DECIDE HOW __MY____ FUCKING PROPERTY IS TO BE USED.

I DID _NOT__ GIVE YOU THE PROPERTY. I ALLOWED YOU A LICENSE TO USE IT. I HAVE NOW REVOKED THAT LICENSE FROM YOU YOU FUCKING PRO-WOMEN'S RIGHTS ANTI-MARRY-CUTE-YOUNG-GIRLS PIECE OF FUCKING FILTH.

As such, said language you quoted is no longer operative for you.

Show me a case otherwise.

You won't because you cannot.

Gratis licenses, without an attached interest, are revocable.

>>1024593

>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

----

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

>>1024594

>sue me then XDDDDDDSDDDDSDSSDDDD

Kindly provide your name, address, etc. Also a photo.

>Protip: you won't because you're a LARPer

I will if you're in the USA.

If you're not then this is a meaningless discussion. This is about US law, not some other country's law

>>1024597

>HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?

Nothing. Thank God for that.

>ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?

No.

>IT IS A BARE LICENSE.

Is this lawyer speak? I'm not a lawyer, sorry.

>I CAN RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME.

wrong

>THE CODE IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS _MY_ PROPERTY.

It is your intellectual property that you have licensed to me under the GPLv2+.

>I ALLOWED YOU A LICENSE TO USE IT.

correct

>I HAVE NOW REVOKED THAT LICENSE FROM YOU YOU [...].

no

>Show me a case otherwise.

why???????????

>Gratis licenses, without an attached interest, are revocable.

sorry m8. you are wrong

>>1024601

> >ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?

>No.

Then explain to me, if we are not in a contract, how you can bind me to a "no revocation" clause. Explain it to me, slowly, please.

> >IT IS A BARE LICENSE.

>Is this lawyer speak? I'm not a lawyer, sorry.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

A bare license is simply permission.

When you allow someone to enter your house you are giving them a (bare) license to enter your house. When you tell them to leave you are rescinding that license. You can do so at any time.

Now if they pay you for "I can enter your house for 30 days", then because there is consideration, and a contract, you cannot then reneg on that term.

> >I CAN RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME.

> wrong

You just agreed that we are not in a contract, how can you now declare that I cannot rescind the license. Please explain you reasoning

>sorry m8. you are wrong

Give you legal reasoning.

>>1024602

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163

Sorry kiddo.

>>1024604

Sorry champ: https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

>>1024604

Groklaw is wrong, and has been WRONG for 10 years. It is written by a paralegal named PJ. I am a licensed attorney. PJ simply read the rules regarding commercial copyright license contracts and applied that to opensource, which is an incorrect application. The "rule" relies on the fact that the commercial licensees paid good consideration for the terms they had purchased. THAT is why the commercial licenses are irrevocable outside of the contract terms.

The same is _NOT_ true with gratis licenses for which you have given _NOTHING_

(There is no contract)

A license, absent an attached interest is revocable. _Regardless_ of the "terms".

(And no, "obeying the license" is not good consideration: you cannot use the fact that you will not violate copyright law as "consideration" for a contract: it is a preexisting duty. You have no right to use, modify, distribute the work without the owners permission: the permission that flows from him to you, memorialized in the license text. Permission that is revocable (it is not a transfer of rights))

But don't take it from me. Take it from some published authors on the subject (who are also attorneys):

( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )

>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

----

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

>>1024606

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

Sorry lad.

>>1024604

>Cites previously anonomyous paralegal woman from online rag

>Ignores published lawyers who are men

(Paralegal woman stopped talking after she would outed)

>>1024608

Sorry, they published that "clarification" after I raised the issue, and their "clarification" is bullshit.

Guess what: The FSF doesn't make the law.

Quick rundown:

Section 4 of the GPLv2 states "parties who have received..."

The "you" here is the licensee, it is not the grantor (See Section 0 of the GPLv2 "Each licensee is addressed as "you". "). It is not applicable against the grantor of the license: it is a rule the licensee has to abide by, set by the grantor, in-order to have permission to modify or create derivative works at all.

About the printer driver case: The contract in that case is the preliminary writing, the offer to do business ("pay us, or alternatively follow the GPL"). The acceptance of that contract by following the terms of that preliminary writing (choosing the GPL instead of paying). That is why both contract and damages under copyright are available. Damages for the contract portion ("pay us"), or damages for violating the GPL license.

The parties later settled out of court. The key is that the businesses offer created two alternative means of acceptance of it's offer to do business: pay for the commercial license, or follow the GPL. So the court allowed the biz to recover the lost profit.

>>1024608

Sorry, read a book *, not a publication by interested parties that was debunked 5 hours after it was published. https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/26/420

* https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

>>1024604

>>1024608

Cites idiot self-sure* paralegal woman who doesn't know her ass from her elbow, and who went silent after she was outed, plus a publication from an interested party that was immediately debunked.

(*is there any other type?)

Vs: Cites published lawyers well versed in their field.

Explains why interested party's publication is bullshit immediately once aware of the fraudulent advice.

Notice no response to >>1024602

Just a change of tactics.

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/code-of-conduct.md

>MikeeUSA committed

>Add Code of Conduct

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

>>1024616

Why are you so obsessed with Mikee?

Where did he touch you?

>>1024623

>Where did he touch you?

On my four essential freedoms.

>>1024616

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/commit/dfe75fc56c723da5626f7b318aaa9cb4b05e84da

>Remove some sexism

woah based

>>1023699

>Infact, you, whomever you are: Your license is revoked.

Got a new one from here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/

:^)

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/28/1894

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/29/208

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/29/239

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/29/273

You're such a faggot, Mikee. Why are you copying posts from here to LKML?????

>>1024631

Nope, revoked.

>>1024633

To drill some law into their "CoC"sucking heads.

Do you know of any way else to do it?

Sent a DMCA takedown notice to github.

Here's a copy: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/29/1251

>>1024631

You have to understand, the license flows from me; my heart.

And my heart is closed to you.

(Because yours is closed to cute young girls)

>>1024776

>"John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating work up, in defiance of me.

Wrong. see >>1024390

>The conversation with the "John Doe" can be found here: 8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398

<linking to 8chan and quoting posts from here in a DMCA takedown notice

Epic. Thanks for the laugh Mikee. I hereby rescind my post on /metatech/ calling for your ban.

>>1024797

Hey, it checks all the boxes.

>Identifies the work.

>Identifies the infringing url

>Has an electronic signature

>Swears good will in that all the information is correct

>Wrong. see >>1024390

>>1024400

>I'm not taking it down.

>>1024799

>>1024390

>I don't think I'm violating any requirements. If I do please tell me and I'll fix it.

The DMCA notice is not (yet) in the repo: https://github.com/github/dmca

Interdasting.

>>1018739

>Enjoy your shoah for attempting to shitting this board and for shilling your shit in several more imageboards.

You stormfaggots don't have a great sense of self awareness do you?

>>1024422

>The highly educated """lawyer""" doesn't know about log10, who could have guessed?

Why would a lawfag know about math?

>>1024889

>stormfaggots

Woah did I just travel back to 2010?

>>1024906

No, its just that stormweeines were shitting up boards back then too. If you're ubermensch why do the Jews control everything. Doesn't that make them better than you since they're so much smarter they were able to subjugate you with guile alone?

>>1025012

If they ignore it, they're liable.

>>1024893

log10 would be slower than the direct compares anyway, no?

(it's also possible that they have redchan spamfiltered).

>>1024800

You are required to obey me regarding my property.

While I allowed others to use, make derivative works, distribute derivative works, I have rescinded that permission explicitly from you.

You also have notice of this revocation of your license.

You then violated the revocation, distributed the work, modified the work, made a derivative work, distributed the derivative work, and said you would not take the material down.

Yes you did violate and then communicated that you didn't care.

Just as you can open your property to the public generally (give a non-exclusive license), and then kick specific individuals out (rescind their license to be on your property), the same can be done for Imaginary Property.

>>1025047

Nah m8. Ignoring an invalid DMCA notice is fine.

>>1025048

>log10 would take a few nanoseconds longer

>>1025055

tl;dr LOL

Maybe you should try reading the GPL before using it? Anyways now it's too late.

>>1025057

Under US law a gratis license is revocable.

Here, study up:

( https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 )

>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

----

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

>>1025057

>Maybe you should try reading the GPL before using it? Anyways now it's too late.

What part of "a license, without an attached interest, is revocable" do you not understand. Tell me, which part.

>>1025056

>Nah m8. Ignoring an invalid DMCA notice is fine.

Show us in what way it is invalid.

They will be sued if they ignore it.

>>1025057

>Maybe you should try reading the GPL before using it? Anyways now it's too late.

NOPE. I DID NOT ASSIGN MY COPYRIGHTS AWAY.

IT IS A _LICENSE_ YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

A GRATIS BARE LICENSE.

And I have RESCINDED that license (permission) from "John Doe".

The code is STILL my property.

What part of this do you not understand you FUCKING piece of shit?

What part of "a license, without an attached interest, is revocable" do you NOT understand?

You didn't pay me SHIT. You have no attached interest. I can revoke at any time AND I HAVE.

>>1025057

Maybe you should understand that the underlying law trumps whatever the GPL and it's proponents pro-port.

Or are you arguing that the GPL trumps the law? Because it sounds like that is what you fucking pieces of garbage are claiming.

>>1025056

> >log10 would take a few nanoseconds longer

Yes it would. The compares are the correct code.

>>1025062

>They will be sued if they ignore it.

Yes, please sue Microsoft.

>>1025066

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_repeat_yourself

>>1025056

The complaint is valid.

1) I am the copyright owner. I am making the complaint.

2) I stated the facts accurately.

3) I identified the infringing work

4) I made a statement of good faith, accuracy.

My understanding of the law is correct aswell.

An unbacked license is revocable. If you want an irrevocable license you have to enter into a contract with the copyright holder, and give good consideration, generally.

>>1025068

>no arguments.

>>1025070

You're immune to arguments.

>>1024893

Because log10 is high school math, and lawyers need a good memory to do their job.

>>1025048

Not really, both cases it's comparing a single variable vs a constant so there can be some exreme optimization.

>>1025066

>The compares are the correct code.

LARP harder.

>>1025062

>They will be sued if they ignore it.

You haven't even sent the DMCA, faggot, it would have appeared in the github DMCA repo even if it had been rejected.

Now kill yourself.

>>1025084

>You haven't even sent the DMCA, faggot

Big if true. Care to comment on that, Mikee?

>>1025086

I did send it.

I sent it from mikeeusa@redchan.it to:

to: copyright@github.com

cc: legal@github.com, legal@microsoft.com, copyright@microsoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, misc@openbsd.org, gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org

bcc: rms@gnu.org, moglen@columbia.edu, bkuhn@sfconservancy.org, esr@thyrsus.com, editor@lwn.net, torvalds@osdl.org, news@theregister.co.uk, editor@lulz.com, blukashev@sempervictus.com, tcallawa@redhat.com, compliance@sfconservancy.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org

>>1025086

Also posted it to their reddit after, just incase they want to ignore their email:

https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/alceii/dmca_takedown_request_to_github_regarding/

>>1025088

wtf

>>1025083

>Not really, both cases it's comparing a single variable vs a constant so there can be some exreme optimization.

I just forgot that x86 cpus (and probably many others), have lookup tables for the common log functions. So the compares and log10 would run in the same amount of time.

Ok so log10 might be equally good

>>1025090

What's the problem?

Do you dislike the to? the cc? or the bcc?

>>1025092

https://www.reddit.com/user/LtGerome

wtf

>>1025090

It says to send to copyright@github.com, so I did.

And then to microsoft since they own the place, and then to lkml since it is relevant to them (GPL RECCISSSION), and to gentoo, because you can convert perl to C and then compile, and then to RMS because he ought to know (since he has betrayed us and is anti-loli now (according to wikipedia)), and to eben (because it's been 3 months since he was going to "debunk" me), and to Bradly Kuhn, because he's a baby-faced fag who isn't a lawyer has played one at the SFConservancy.

And to OpenBSD, out of respect.

>>1025093

Is there a problem here?

St. Gerome brought the truth of God's law to the common Latin speaking masses.

Lt. Gerome brings the truth of US law to the common "CoC" sucking cowards.

>>1025094

ebin

>>1025088

Still no DMCA on github, so press X to doubt.

Have you read the DMCA form they ask you to fill? Because the "DMCA" you claim to have posted does not respect said form in the slightest.

>>1025089

>using reddit

>spamming reddit

>using an alt to upvote your own spam

epic

>>1025091

No need for a lookup table, just exp both sides and the comparison result stays the same: any compiler can do that.

>>1025137

>Have you read the DMCA form they ask you to fill? Because the "DMCA" you claim to have posted does not respect said form in the slightest.

Yes, and I am not going to fill out their form. I do not care if it does not respect "their" form. "Their" form is not the law. I gave the required info.

In their form they have "is this an opensource project", if it is they ignore it.

That is not how US law works however.

>>1025137

>Still no DMCA on github, so press X to doubt.

How about you look at the fucking email headers from the mail CC'd to lkml. You should see the original to: in there, fucking retard. I sent it to them.

>>1025137

Using an exponent, that costs more cycles than a straight compare.

>No need for a lookup table, just exp both sides and the comparison result stays the same: any compiler can do that.

Not talking about compiler shit, retard. x86 processors themselves have the lookup tables built in.

You people think you're smarter than you are. Fuck you.

>>1025093

That reads a lot like what a particular lolcow in the Undertale fandom used to post.

They both repost their shit to random subs too, hmmmmmmm.

Eric S Raymond's Commands

0. Be fearful of your god, that worship without self-sacrifice is a sin

1. You shall complete basic programming training, he who does not is a heretic

2. As per daily rituals, you must code everyday, to seek the road to ascension

3. The hackerspace shall be your temple, and the members shall be your brethren

4. At the end of your journey, you will present your Magnum Opus as a final offering

a. The Magnum Opus will act as a reflection of what you have not learned

b. The Magnum Opus will be a project that you have full responsibility over

c. The Magnum Opus will be on public display, and all critics will be your judge

Taken from http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=4817

>>1025148

>Using an exponent, that costs more cycles than a straight compare.

Not if you do during compilation.

>Not talking about compiler shit, retard

You're not talking about compile-time optimizations because you're a colossal retard that does not want to admit how shit his pajeet-tier code is.

>You people think you're smarter than you are.

Even more epic.

Sent again via redchan, firemail, and airmail, also now sent via their form.

--

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into consideration.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

:

As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached interest, is revocable.

A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).

The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for the license).

The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.

This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).

The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.

The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to use my property.

When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be rescinded by the owner, at his will.

(/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially, under US law.)

I have done so.

I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.

"John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain to him US law.

"John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating work up, in defiance of me.

(IE: he would "pirate" it)

He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited published works by lawyers studied in their field.

(Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the work and never signed over copyright to the work.)

(Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute, distribute derivative works)

[Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on principal)]

I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you, GitHub.

Regrettably;

--MikeeUSA--

(electronic signature)

Jan 29, 2019

Contact information:

email: mikeeusa@redchan.it

infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and copyright.

Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the best of my knowledge and ability.

Some notices to you, github:

1) Yes I viewed your page at: https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/

2) Yes this is "opensource" code.

3) No that does not matter:

The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable ("retroactively").

Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.

The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me no consideration.

He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.

It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.

I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term" was indeed "purchased")

It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my property at my demand.

I have made such a demand.

4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not heed my request.

Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy all you want.

They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

...

...

-----

The conversation with the "John Doe" can be found here: 8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html#1024398

Some excerpts:

From me to "John Doe":

> >>1024390

>

>1) I rescind your permission to modify, make derivative works, distribute the program. The GPL license you "have" been granted from me, is revoked.

>

>2) you are impersonating me.

> >>1024400

>I rescind the license from you.

>I am going to sue you if I find out who you are.

----

From "John Doe"

> >Your license was rescinded by author.

> You can't :^)

>I'm not taking it down.

> >>1024597

> >HOW MUCH DID YOU FUCKING PAY ME?

> Nothing. Thank God for that.

>

> >ARE WE IN A CONTRACT?

> No.

>

> >IT IS A BARE LICENSE.

> Is this lawyer speak? I'm not a lawyer, sorry.

>

> >I CAN RESCIND IT AT ANY TIME.

> wrong

>

> >THE CODE IS NOT YOUR PROPERTY. IT IS _MY_ PROPERTY.

> It is your intellectual property that you have licensed to me under the GPLv2+.

>

> >I ALLOWED YOU A LICENSE TO USE IT.

> correct

>

> >I HAVE NOW REVOKED THAT LICENSE FROM YOU YOU [...].

> no

>

> >Show me a case otherwise.

> why???????????

>

> >Gratis licenses, without an attached interest, are revocable.

> sorry m8. you are wrong

-----

Remeber: A license, absent an interest, is revocable in the US.

-----

Some study materials:

(From: Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property):

>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it received 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. Remember 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 described in this book, only the GPL makes the explicitly 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

----

(Additionally:)

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

>>1025143

>In their form they have "is this an opensource project", if it is they ignore it.

wtf I love Microsoft now

>>1025149

Never played undertale. Commercial game?

>>1025155

None of your proposed optimizations make it any faster than the straight compares that are in the code now. There is no reason to change it.

>>1025173

>muh fast

>a few nanoseconds matter for a shitty terminal game

If I knew Perl and if I could stomach looking at your absolute garbage code for more than 10 seconds I would change it.

Sent via their form and by email now:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/756

>>1025176

Doesn't change the fact that 1) my code is faster

2) I can revoke gratis bare licenses at will.

Just made two new repos :^)

https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

https://bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2/src

>>1025143

>"Their" form is not the law.

It doesn't matter, LARPer.

A lawyer would know that a DMCA takedown request is not law either, in fact its purpose is to keep things outside a courtroom (at least as far as the host is concerned).

GitHub has a DMCA policy, which you completely ignored of course.

If you had actually sent them a DMCA (and you have not), and decided to drag them to court over their refusal to comply, they would have an easy time showing how you didn't bother making a valid claim which included the required information to verify it met the minimum requirements they ask for.

You're not even smart enough to read through the guidelines to see how easily you could game them, kys fake lawyer.

>>1025186

>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it received 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. Remember 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 described in this book, only the GPL makes the explicitly 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

>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it received 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. Remember 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 described in this book, only the GPL makes the explicitly 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

>>1025188

Nice bot, faggot.

>>1025186

I just sent it via their DMCA-notice contact form a moment ago you fucking passe moron. Get with the times. Sending only via email is so 1 day ago.

>>1025168

>Sent again via redchan, firemail, and airmail, also now sent via their form.

(following the advice here: https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/al501e/lkml_dmca_takedown_request_to_github_regarding/ )

>>1025192

Not mine, and I didn't post that particular re-recitation of Lawrence Rosen's "Got it right the first time" ex-positional book.

But I would like to thank whomever owns the bot: You took some work off my sholders :D. Keep up the good work.

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

https://bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2

>>1025194

>I just sent it via their DMCA-notice contact form a moment ago

It does not matter if you keep sending gibberish that does not meet their standards.

>>1025195

(I did post all the previous re-recitations, ofcourse, just not >>1025188 , I am glad >>1025188 has chosen to quote L.R.Esq ofcourse :D)

>>1025197

Then I'll just sue them when they ignore.

Go and FUCK yourself.

THEIR standard does NOT matter.

All that matters is that I identified the infringing work,

stated, truthfully, that I am the copyright owner,

stated that I promise it is true

told them what remedy I want (take it down or I sue you fucking pieces of filth)

It is NOT gibberish. I explained that I have an as-of-right choice to rescind gratuitous licenses and I have chosen to do so.

It is MY FUCKING PROPERTY.

And if they continue to assist "John Doe" in copyright infringement I will sue them.

>>1025197

>It does not matter if you keep sending gibberish that does not meet their standards.

Their standards do not matter. They are not the judge. This is concerning my property. They did not make the law.

Why don't you get that you FUCKING piece of FILTH?

>>1025197

>It does not matter if you keep sending gibberish that does not meet their standards.

Look at this. This fucking pro-women's rights, anti-marry-cute-young-girls, techi faggot loves to put his other techi faggots in presumed positions of power over "me". As if it is their choice weather it is lawful for them to not comply.

It isn't their choice.

I sent a valid DMCA take down request.

>>1025196

Your license is rescinded. I assume you are the same "John Doe"

Just wanted to make sure you understood.

>>1025202

>>1025199

>>1025203

You know already they won't accept your DMCA due to your intentional refusal to comply to their requests, why don't you sue them pussy?

>>1025205

I sent it via their form now, complied with their crap.

>>1025196

Your license regarding GPC-Slots2 is terminated, take down my property at once. (This is not to be construed as a lifting of any previous communicated rescission). I do not extend to you any license to use, modify, or distribute GPC-Slots2

Sent DMCA takedown to legal@gitlab.com

GitLab Support Bot

Date Today 18:00

Message Body

Thank you for your support request! We are tracking your request as ticket #1294, and will respond as soon as we can.

>>1025196

How do you feel about my counter-counter-sexism striving...

I contacted GitHub and told them that I, the entity known as MikeeUSA, am fine with my code remaining on their platform, and that the DMCA takedown requests they have received are from an impostor and should be ignored.

Sent to

legal@gitlab.com

? legal@bitbucket.org

? copyright@bitbucket.org

? dmca@bitbucket.org

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/812

>>1025213

That's fraud. And prosecutable.

>>1025219

No, I am MikeeUSA, and what you're doing is fraud. I'm fine with my code remaining on GitHub. Please cease issuing fake DMCA takedown requests in my name.

>>1025213

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

https://gpcslots2.sourceforge.io/notes_vs_johndoe/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

>>1025223

You sound like my friend who's going to prison for life now.

Anyway:

>>1025213

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

https://gpcslots2.sourceforge.io/notes_vs_johndoe/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

The "John Doe" is now impersonating me (again).

I have uploaded these files to another long-held account of mine to show that, as lain would say "I'm me". I have issued the DMCA takedown request.

>>1025213

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

https://gpcslots2.sourceforge.io/notes_vs_johndoe/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

On 2019-01-30 18:00, GitLab Support Bot wrote:

> Thank you for your support request! We are tracking your request as

> ticket #1294, and will respond as soon as we can.

>

>>1025228

How am I impersonating you?

>>1025228

Sent to github aswell.

>>1025230

>>1025223

>>1025213

>>1025211

>>1025210

Let me guess, you did not follow their DMCA policy either?

>>1025213

Triple ebin :DDDDDDDD

>>1025219

>>1025225

>>1025226

>>1025228

MAXIMUM COPE

>>1025232

Yeah. There are other people on here that like to fuck with you. I'm not impersonating you.

I just made an improved version of GPC-Slots 2 and backed it up to Gitlab and Bitbucket just in case.

>>1025234

After your license was revoked.

BTW, why the fuck is sourceforge an .io now?

>>1025235

# By The Entity Known As MikeeUSA

#This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or

#modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License

#as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2

#of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

#

#This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,

#but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of

#MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the

#GNU General Public License for more details.

#

#You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License

#along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software

#Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.

I have printed this out and pinned it onto the wall next to my monitor. Everytime you rescind the license I just take a quick glance at it and I get a new one.

>>1025236

It's not

>>1025237

MikeeUSA status: rekt

>>1025239

The license does not flow from the piece of paper. It comes from me (the owner).

And I am not giving it to "John Doe" any more. I have rescinded his license. That piece of paper is inoperative. A decoration on a wall. One that will catch him a copyright infringement case.

The GPL recognizes that the license flows from the owner in section 6:

"the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor"

Not anyone else.

The GPL itself does not make this so, it just recognizes the facts of the matter.

I have revoked your license.

>>1025237

Notice the progress we have made.

We have moved from:

> "you can't revoke the license"

>To "(Well maybe you can but...) I can get a new license".

>>1025304

So even with this logic, exist the admission that all it would take for the linux kernel rights-holders is a simple blanket rescission...

>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

----

>David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>"Termination of rights

>[...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>[...] My point is not that termination is a great risk, it is that it is not recognized as a risk even though it is probably relevant to commercial end-users, accustomed to having contractual rights they can enforce themselves.

https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/1223ALicenseisNot.pdf

Interesting, even a person with a copyright license /contract/ which pro-ports to be irrevocable, the irrevocable rights are not enforceable against the copyright owner's assignees.

So even an "irrevokable" contract, that you paid for, isn't iron-clad.

(And all we have here with the GPL is an bare license, not even a contract)

A "bare license" is understood to consist of nothing more than a use privilege, which remains liable to the licensor's power of revocation at will.

Licensor manifests his intent to allow,

licensee doesn't have to do anything.

No formalities.

Just like the GPL.

MikeeUSA v. Microsoft Corp. when?

Still nothing on the gitbuh DMCA page, by the way.

>>1025480

>Still nothing on the gitbuh DMCA page, by the way.

Assholes.

>>1025480

Maybe they don't want to publish the legal reasoning as it would spook their users?

>>1025551

>legal reasoning

https://github.com/github/dmca

>We publish them as they are received, with only personally identifiable information redacted.

>It only means that we received the notice on the indicated date. It does not mean that the content was unlawful or wrong. It does not mean that the user identified in the notice has done anything wrong. We don't make or imply any judgment about the merit of the claims they make. We post these notices and requests only for informational purposes.

>>1025555 (checked)

>>1025550

They can't publish it if you never send it, you only have yourself to blame.

>>1025555

quads of BTFO

>>1018805

Can't you forfeit your rights to something though? Isn't that what charity is? I can't donate something, even fairly valuable like a car, to a charity then take it back later and say I never got consideration for it.

>>1025564

I sent it. Every fucking way.

Email. (copyright@github.com)

Form. github.com/contact/dmca

reddit reddit.com/r/github

Honestly, you try it. I allow you to copy from the LKML and paste it into their form: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/756

You can be my agent for this task if you wish.

Then you will see for yourself that they simply won't publish it.

>>1025566

>Can't you forfeit your rights to something though? Isn't that what charity is? I can't donate something, even fairly valuable like a car, to a charity then take it back later and say I never got consideration for it.

Yes, this is why the FSF is a 501(c)(3) organization. So that when promise to give something to them (transfer), you cannot later get them back.

It is the "charitable exception" to the default rule in America. If you promise to give a charity something, the courts will enforce that even though there is no consideration. They call this "promissory estopple". It's part of equity (not law). IE: "we won't enforce your lawful right because reasons". Since you can't use self-help anymore, the courts are your only enforcement options so they got you.

It's so that heirs can be deftly disinherited and thrown out on the street. Which is the American way. (otherwise they could contest the gifts etc)

In the case of Linux, such transfers have not taken place.

(and, ofcourse, in our little analogue of linux legal situation here)

The linux kernel programmers just kept their copyrights and only license the code out.

This is not what the FSF wanted to happen, because it is not a stable legal situation. Linus did not care. Everyone else followed suit. Opensource exploded.

>>1025555

I'll send it through the form again without the stuff from Lawrence Rosen.

Bruce Perens has been flagging everything I send to him as spam without reading it, and then that might go onto shared spam filters.

That includes the L.R.esq quotes.

He's been doing this because he is very angry that a pro-loli person bewitched him and used him as a mouthpiece for almost a straight month.

This is how he gets back at me.

>>1025583

>I sent it. Every fucking way.

You didn't, you know you didn't, and you're too much of a retard to realize everyone knows you didn't.

>>1025555

Name: Michael UnitedEstadiousDelAmericano

Email: mikeeusa@airmail.cc

Subject: DMCA takedown notice

< Back to Contact GitHub

Thanks for getting in touch with us!

We’ll get back to you shortly.

>>1025587

I did, and I just sent it again, short form, just incase it was getting spam filtered, and I also have authorized you to send it to them for yourself through their form, again. (Authorized text: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/756 )

As an authorized agent for this task there is no legal problem for you to do so.

>>1025587

Everyone on the lkml can actually check the email headers from:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/756

in their mailbox to see that I did send it to copyright@github.com.

That is the original recipient, the lkml was just CC'd.

They removed my request from their reddit also:

https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/alceii/dmca_takedown_request_to_github_regarding/

I sent via: email, multiple times,

Form, 3 times now,

reddit.

>>1025594

>As an authorized agent for this task there is no legal problem for you to do so.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand you're trying to get someone else to submit a fraudolent claim for you.

>>1025598

Headers can be faked, LARPer, and you know the github subreddit is not the place to send a DMCA claim to.

>>1025602

>and you know the github subreddit is not the place to send a DMCA claim to

He might actually not know that. Not only is he suffering from a debilitating mental illness, he's not a lawyer.

>>1025602

I'm pretty sure he did send the DMCA to Github but they just disregard it because of his insane ramblings.

He also doesn't provide contact information.

>>1025583

>muh FSF copyright assignment

It's optional you retard.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2014/spring/copyright-assignment-at-the-fsf

>>1025606

He has the minimal technical skills required to install tor and use it to surf the web, there's no way he can't figure out what a subreddit is.

>>1025610

I don't think he sent it, github posts even barely readable DMCA claims, and ones in which the claimant says "dunno" when asked if the code in question is open source.

Example: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2019/01/2019-01-30-work-isvwh.md

Notice how they still accepted the claim, too!

>>1025611

>It's optional you retard.

>In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer.

>>1025606

I sent it to copyright@github.com

(LOOK AT THE HEADERS FROM https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/30/756 )

I sent it via https://github.com/contact/dmca-notice

>>1025610

Why do you say my writings are "insane ramblings"?

I am a licensed fucking attoney. I know what I am talking about.

YOU ARE NOT AND IT IS __YOUUUUUUUUU___ WHO DON't KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>>1025613

They do not publish my claim because it is not one they can mock and make fun of.

I am correct on the law, and it threatens the foundation of the opensource enterprise in the USA (as it always has).

>>1025602

>It doesn't take a lawyer to understand you're trying to get someone else to submit a fraudolent claim for you.

My claim is not fraudluent.

1) I am me

2) I am the author of GPC-Slots2

3) I have rescinded "John Doe's" license.

4) I can do this since it is a gratuitous license and we are operating under US law.

>>1025623

>When the developers of a program make it a GNU package, they can decide either to give the copyright to the FSF so it can enforce the GPL for the package, or else to keep the copyright as well as the responsibility for enforcing the GPL. If they make it an FSF-copyrighted package, then the FSF asks for copyright assignments for further contributions, and this page explains why.

>>1025626

Alright. At this point the only option left is suing the FUCK out of Microsoft.

>>1019440

>>1019018

It's not that it doesn't happen here, it's that users are generally more responsive and will move to an alternate chan or board if things get too shitty. While redditors, if they even notice, won't do much. Any complainers are quickly banned and have their posts removed. In a way, imageboards are much more personal in how each anon can communicate directly with everyone else, while in more structured forums like reddit the conversation is for more ordered by hierarchy and direct interaction between users is not as common as "community-wide" interactions. But the "community" is very carefully curated and directed from the top down.

>>1025637

>While redditors, if they even notice, won't do much.

They don't notice so hard that reddit had to redesign the vote algorythm to hide the drop in users.

>>1025628

Drop the act already, they don't publish because you never sent a claim in the first place.

They are willing to publish and honor google translated Pajeet claims right next to claims made by gigantic corporations, you're not special.

>>1025640

Reddit also changed the way their voting works to hide dissent, under the guise of fighting spam bots. Used to be their posts showed the number of downvotes, upvotes, and then the total. But now they only show the total. So a post could be -500 and +510, but the users can only see the final +10. And who knows how many other ways they manipulate voting there to influence the users by controlling what the user thinks is normal, popular, or encouraged, and then rewarding them for playing along.

>>1025583

>Yes, this is why the FSF is a 501(c)(3) organization. So that when promise to give something to them (transfer), you cannot later get them back.

Isn't there like some kind of license squatter's rights or something? Linux is damn near 30 years old, if someone doesn't exercise their license rights for decades it doesn't seem reasonable that they can do so after clearly not caring about it.

Also you said that the FSF, Stallman et al were aware of this. Is there some kind of write up on this from them. I'd like to do a presentation on this for my Linux User's Group.

>>1025645

Also couldn't they just say "NATIONAL SECURITY" and sweep away all these copyright claims anyway. In the case of the Linux kernel claiming these copyright claims have to be suspended, whatever their veracity might be, would actually be pretty reasonable.

>>1025645

>Isn't there like some kind of license squatter's rights or something? Linux is damn near 30 years old, if someone doesn't exercise their license rights for decades it doesn't seem reasonable that they can do so after clearly not caring about it.

Im not the guy you are replying to but it could be that the licensor is no longer happy with the arrangement.

Since you didnt pay anything for the license, you were just using it because of their good will, you have no rights to anything.

Thats how it works in most business situations. If coke was crazy enough to allow me to use the word coke on my drink for ten years for free, and then I decide to make my drink container in to a massive penis, and they rescinded the license, I would have no rights based on how long I used the name.

Sent a new one via the form.

Name: MikeeUSA

Email: mikeeusa@redchan.it

DMCA takedown notice-GPCSlots2

Please provide a detailed description of the original copyrighted work that has allegedly been infringed. If possible, include a URL to where it is posted online.

GPC-Slots 2 is a text-mode casino game I created. It includes 5 slot machines, 3 table games (Sic Bo, Craps, and 2 variations of the little wheel), plus Russian Roulette and a stock market.

You can enjoy it from here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/

*What files should be taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository's URL:**

http://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

Have you searched for any forks of the allegedly infringing files or repositories? Each fork is a distinct repository and must be identified separately if you believe it is infringing and wish to have it taken down.

Yes, they are also on other platforms, all uploaded by the "John Doe"

Is the work licensed under an open source license? If so, which open source license? Are the allegedly infringing files being used under the open source license, or are they in violation of the license?

Yes. The GPL. However I had revoked the "John Doe"'s license. The license, in this instance, being a bare license.

A license without an interest attached is revocable, in the USA.

The "John Doe" was not in privity of contract with me, and had not paid me anything for the work.

It was licensed to him under a bare license, which had then been rescinded.

He thus had, and does not have, any permission to use, modify, distribute, nor make derivative works of the aforementioned work.

Remeber: the license comes from me, the Copyright owner. Not from any document or record: that is simply a memorandum of the terms.

I have chosen to revoke the "John Doe"'s license, and not issue any to him further. He has been informed of this.

His actions there-after and at current are infringing.

What would be the best solution for the alleged infringement? Are there specific changes the other person can make other than removal?

The only solution that I will accept is you acquiescing to my demand of removal.

Do you have the alleged infringer's contact information? If so, please provide it:

No. You can ask him for it here: 8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html

You can also contact the "John Doe" through the email he registered with you. Don't play dumb.

Please confirm that you have you have read our Guide to Submitting a DMCA Takedown Notice: https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/

I really do not give half a damn about your guide. It is patronizing and moronic, it sounds as if it were written by a woman, perhaps a paralegal.

The fact of the matter is that a bare license is revocable by the grantor.

To achieve an irrevocable license one must generally enter into a copyright license contract with the licensor, supported by good consideration.

"Obeying the license" is not good consideration as it is a pre-existing legal duty.

So that we can get back to you, please provide either your telephone number or physical address:

Contact me at mikeeusa@redchan.it

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into consideration.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

Please type your full legal name below to sign this request:

I'm signing with my long-held nom de guerre. Think of it as an X

--MikeeUSA--

>>1025645

>Isn't there like some kind of license squatter's rights or something? Linux is damn near 30 years old, if someone doesn't exercise their license rights for decades it doesn't seem reasonable that they can do so after clearly not caring about it.

Not in the USA. That was actually tested in a case regarding copyright, the court ruled that adverse possession was not possible regarding copyrights.

>>1025649

I doubt you actually sent it, in any case failure to provide a valid signature makes the claim invalid.

>>1025649

Why are trying to take down your own repository????

>>1025665

>fell for the impersonation bait

>>1025748

>fell for the impersonation bait on here

I have already contacted Github and let them know that I, MikeeUSA, want my code to remain on Github, and that an impostor is issuing fake DMCA takedown requests in an attempt to get it removed. I've also been in touch with Bitbucket, Gitlab, et al.

>>1025753

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

https://gpcslots2.sourceforge.io/notes_vs_johndoe/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt

>>1025665

It's not my repository.

>>1025656

>I doubt you actually sent it, in any case failure to provide a valid signature makes the claim invalid.

An "X" is a valid signature. Learn some law. That's in contracts 101.

Sent again, cc'd to lkml.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/31/1149

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

tkdnreq_github.txt

https://gpcslots2.sourceforge.io/notes_vs_johndoe/tkdnreq_github.txt

They won't publish it on their DMCA page because it is not something they can post and mock, like the women they are.

Instead it would inform their users about the truth concerning US law.

Sent to their reddit aswell. (again)

https://www.reddit.com/r/github/comments/alyo8o/dmca_takedown_notice_gpcslots_2_after_gpl/

>This was sent by MikeeUSA via your form as-well, you won't respond because it is not something you can mock like gossiping women.

>

>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>1025776

>Sent to their reddit aswell.

It's not "their" reddit, you dumb nigger

Oh fuggggg. Mikee wasn't memeing.

Hi,

We have received a DMCA complaint regarding content that is under your control. We’ve included the entire DMCA request below:
[…]
If you believe you are not infringing you have the ability to file a counter-notice as per DMCA. A counter complaint requires:

Your name
Your address
Your email address
A digital signature

And statement under penalty of perjury that you have "a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled."

If we do not receive a counter-notice within 48 hours, your account will be disabled and the content in question removed.

Regards,
Cynthia Ng
Support Agent, GitLab Inc.