/tech/ - Technology★

>Legal Remedy for Code of Conduct Change - LKML

You forgot a 'possible' there. Anyways nobody will actually do this.

>>973696

That depends on the scale of the outrage. So far so good, but if (when) shit hits the fan, the projectiles are to cause an avalanche.

>The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has such a clause...)

GPLv2 proving yet again that it is the king.

>>973696

< ITS THEORETICAL GUISE. PLEAS DON'T DO THIS.

Hi Coraline.

>>973718

GPLv2 is only about the software. CoC politics is about anything but. They can sleep in the same bed.

>>973694

Lol fuck lawyers, let's make the first open source legal case.

>>973744

How difficult would it be for them to move to GPLv3?

>>973744

Who's this cuck Steve Litt? And it isn't off topic, a major fucking change to Linux Development is serious business you little soyboy.

I thought contributing patches to kernel required legal waver of some sorts.

>>973744

P-PLEASE STOP

corporations and states have already pushed their code since forever

gpl3 does have some very nice additions

I am genuinely trying to understand this completely, but I don't think I am 100% getting this.

My understanding is that developers/ex developers can request their code be legally removed from the kernel because the CoC was not there when they originally submitted it and they maintain ownership of it?

Or have I gotten this completely wrong? Sorry, but I don't speak law or understand the kernel politics much, could someone kindly dumb this down for me so I could better understand this? Thanks a lot.

>>973774

OP's letter claims that under US copyright law author can rewoke non-binding licenses (such as GPL v.2) for his work at will, no justification required.

This is bollocks unfortunately.

If that was possible, many people would have done so, for various other reasons.

>>973788 is right. Complete bullshit.

There are no terms in GPLv2 permitting the termination or revocation of the permission already given under it. Therefore, it is perpetual.

The termination section was added to GPLv3 to allow for licence termination in the event of an infringement of the patents section.

>>973789

>There are no terms in GPLv2 permitting the termination or revocation of the permission already given under it.

Yes, that's because it's part of the legal framework, not the licence. The right must be explicitly revoked by the licence else it still stands.

>>973786

Thank you for explaining it

>>973641 (OP)

Holy shit, here we fucking go...

Popcorn time.

>>973758

Basically impossible in the case of the kernel, they would have to ask literally everyone who has ever contributed even a single line of code to the project to waive their potential copyright rights along with a few other things such as patents.

>>973755

You should look up UNCITRAL model law for private international contracts. If you can get through the first 40 pages (not including table of contents, faggot), it'll blow your god damned mind. The words you're looking for are "ex aequo et bono".

>>973758

see >>973651

>>973893

isn't jailbreak a thing because legaly you own the device. so you can do whatever you want with it?

>>973937

DMCA says you can't break any DRM, no matter if you own thing or not.

Special exceptions were made just for jailbreaking smartphones.

This is like trying to save Linux by nuking it. Sure, it would get rid of the CoC problem, but it would require development to start on a separate GPLv3 kernel or something.

>>973937

If someone sold you a Consumer product already loaded with GPLv3 software then they have to provide you with a way of unlocking (i.e jailbraking) the hardware so you can install your own software. They don't however have to babysit you on your newly installed GNU/Hurd OS.

>>973945

The GPLv3 gives limited protection against lawsuits about DRM cracking in clause 3 of the GPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html#section3

<3. Protecting Users' Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.

<No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

<When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.

From https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DRMProhibited :

<Does GPLv3 prohibit DRM?

<It does not; you can use code released under GPLv3 to develop any kind of DRM technology you like. However, if you do this, section 3 says that the system will not count as an effective technological “protection” measure, which means that if someone breaks the DRM, she will be free to distribute her software too, unhindered by the DMCA and similar laws.

<As usual, the GNU GPL does not restrict what people do in software, it just stops them from restricting others.

>>973947

Looks a bit like JFK's strategy during the Cuban missile crisis.

>>973947

>GPLv3 kernel

I like the idea, but I don't know how that could legally happen.

>>973947

Why would the companies who are the real ones forcing this COC onto the kernel want GPLv3?

>>973945

DMCA says a lot of shit and many of them has no sense.

also replacing all software in "that" hardware

doesn't break any DRM. so still you can do whatever you want.

wipe it and replace.

>>973744

>THIS KILLS THE CORALINE

While I'm all for getting rid of SJWs in tech, if I understand things correctly, that course of action will most likely have the side-effect of killing the kernel too. Moreover, there's nothing stopping SJWs from infecting future forks (or any future project for that matter).

Yet more proof that politics is the cancer that is killing tech.

>>973981

Killing Linux now would be a fantastic victory. At this point it's completely subverted and there's no way to recover it. If you can use a sourced earth policy on every thing SJWs touch soon people will fear you more than them. If people fear you destroying their software and costing them a shit load of money (income and lawyers) then they will start listening to your requests.

You have to become digital terrorists if you want them to listen to you. Other wise you're just another person whining with no power while they get subverted to "be a good person, support trannies".

>>973732

It really goes to show that the gpl was made by stallman to steal software and the labor from programmers. First gpl doesn't allow someone to sell their software, now you can't relicense software once licensed. How people fall for stallman is astonishing.

>>974003

Nice attempt to dox someone. There's no reason he has to prove who he is.

So, should we be spreading this around or not?

>>974001

You absolutely can sell software under the gpl and you can relicense your own code. Where did you read any of this?

>>974009

You probably shouldn't. Better to surprize attack rather than give them find to find a way around it.

>>974003

>unconditionedwitness is MikeeUSA.

I don't like the guy either, but does he really have any less of a point?

>>974009

It originated from a fucking kernel mailing list, where do you spread it from this point?

>>973987

>Killing Linux now would be a fantastic victory. At this point it's completely subverted and there's no way to recover it. If you can use a sourced earth policy on every thing SJWs touch soon people will fear you more than them.

>>973997

>I wish this guy wasn't 100% correct. Unfortunately, we should listen to him.

Exactly how do you guys intend to accomplish that?

>>974017

Find a bored lawyer who feels like suing every last faggot on the planet who ever touched Linux while you're code was in it. Patent trolls can do it so why can't others? Enough people do it and suddenly it becomes toxic to touch Linux and hopefully all of open source where this shit happens.

You make linux dangerous.

>>974015

Speaking of Mike, see one of the original lead Nexuiz devs attempt to relicense others contributions from GPL, then give up and write a new game with same name.

>>973947

>>973981

I think you people making this argument are missing the point.

It's not so much "fuck you and fuck this CoC, I'm going to nuke everything", it's "hey fuckhead, if you fuck me over with this dumb CoC shit I have legal recourse--I'm packing up and taking my code with me". Which I think is entirely reasonable, assuming it's actually legal.

If I was contributing to the project and I suddenly got kicked out for "misgendering" somebody or some other dumb shit, you can fucking bet I'd want to revoke my contributions to the project. As I've seen put elsewhere,

>we dont want your future code because you're literally hitler, but we want your past code :^)

Nah, fuck that.

>>974022

Fascists like yourself will never win. The future is female.

>>974024

It doesn't matter who he is if the message itself has valid points. That's the nature of an anonymous imageboard; which strangely you do not seem to understand.

If he can be proven "right" or we can find a legal option for ejected contributers, then so be it.

>>974028

It's clear anon is trying to get people to quit trying. Why would anyone be scared if it's a bunch of bullshit? Clearly it has merit and they just don't want you to go digging into it. I am getting some serious déjà vu right now.

>>974024

Even a lawyer's opinion is only worth so much without cases. You're right insofar as there is no argument by authority to be had here if you're not a lawyer but If contributors start getting the boot over this and fight back that could change.

>>974025

If this isn't sarcasm, eat a motherfucking gun, you commie piece of shit.

Y'all are so concerned with the spooks infiltrating Linux and puttting in backdoors that you aren't realizing they could just use your own fear and hatred to get you to destroy it yourself. If people start pulling code from this project and rescinding their licences you're doing the bidding of the people who want Linux to die.

>>974028

<It doesn't matter who he is if the message itself has valid points.

Correct.

<That's the nature of an anonymous imageboard; which strangely you do not seem to understand.

As we aquire knowledge of the world around us some of it is through direct experience, but most of it is from other people. No man can personally verify each claim about the world so we choose to trust people we believe are competent in the given area. It's not perfect, but we have no choice. If unconditionedwitness can't come forward for fear of retaliation then we have to manually check his claims and I don't have the insight into the legal system to know if unconditionedwitness is correct or not. I put more trust into Richard Stallman (the main author of GPLv2) than the unkown unconditionedwitness.

>>974031

Go ahead, I'm just letting you know that there is no proof that unconditionedwitness@redchan.it is a lawyer.

>>974032

I should clarify that CoCsuckers can hang themselves, but what I don't believe is that the GPL can be revoked because a project adopted a retarded CoCk that you don't think should be there. Here's one example of attempted GPL revocation https://web.archive.org/web/20080129093733/https://sourceforge.net/developer/diary.php?diary_id=26407&diary_user=147583 and Groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163 has this to say about it

<No. One can't retroactively revoke licenses previously granted, unless the license terms allow you to do so.

<The most you can do is stop granting new licenses.

<Yes, I verified this with an attorney. Here's the GPL v2. See any terms allowing you to revoke? Me neither.

>>974045

It's not revoking license. It's your rights under copyright to decide how your creations are used and interaction of that with GPL. v3 specifically forbids taking your code back if I'm understanding correctly but v2 does not.

>>974028

His interpretation of the law is frankly bullshit. Were he a lawyer, I might be willing to believe him over my intution, but he isn't, so into the trash it goes.

>>974031

>people say I'm wrong so I must be right

>>974045

>I'm just letting you know that there is no proof that unconditionedwitness@redchan.it is a lawyer.

Why bother making the distinction? It's the internet; almost no one is an actual lawyer. Then again, you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer to understand the legal ramifications of something.

A bit funny how you then use a source which contends someone on the internet getting consult from "a lawyer" is somehow more reputable a claim.

>Yes, I verified this with an attorney.

>>974050

>people say you're wrong so stop trying to prove yourself right

that's you right now.

I'm going to tap out now because I am much more interested in seeing how this unfolds.

>>974050

>His interpretation of the law is frankly bullshit. Were he a lawyer, I might be willing to believe him over my intution, but he isn't, so into the trash it goes.

You're under no obligation to believe him, but it's the purpose of discussion to investigate as individuals. Dismissing because of your personal perception of non-authority of the author doesn't contribute to the thread.

>>973959

Because GPL v3 allows you to rescind your copyright, which means that you can reliscense the whole project under something else entirely with the GNU foundations cooperation. This is all so that the linux kernel can be reliscensed along with the rest of the open source software under redhat's control.

>>974025

And yet the present is genderless, anonymous, without any identity to get in the way of what we say and what we do. And so it is you who is the fascist, who resents a sincere egalitarianism and seeks political control over others, in both private and public affairs, far beyond the sphere within which one works. And that is why you will lose, because ultimately you operate as petty tyrants, infiltrate as parasites, and have no achievements of your own, only identifying vicariously with the achievements of others while you have no achievements of your own. That is why you receive no respect, and that is why a meritocratic system is such anathema to you. Because when your respect is determined by your achievements, those who have no achievements and can only falsely claim credit for others' work through the most tenuous association, will naturally receive no respect and will not be appreciated or tolerated when they make their absurd demands.

There is no reason to attack meritocracy save that you lack the ability to achieve any merit and yet demand respect regardless.

Burn it all. They wanted a war. Let's give it to them.

>>974081

That would never be allowed to happen. Too much corporate money invested in Linux right now. Most likely some company like RedHat or possibly even Google would step in.

>>974017

Find a competent IT lawyer that wants to make a name for himself as the guy that took down Linux.

>>973981

>that course of action will most likely have the side-effect of killing the kernel too

Good, burn the fucking thing to the ground.

I could write multiple posts about how awful Linux is for anyone who has to do anything serious with it and how we could have something far better but I would just be beating a dead horse, the real argument for using the Samson Option is what >>973987 said. You put the fucking fear that you are more than happy to destroy everything if they should even look at you funny and they wont try to screw you over, if there is one thing you must understand about SJW types its that they are extremely cowardly and lack all sense of honor. They test you at first, if you show weakness then they dive on you, but if you rip their head off (figuratively speaking) they leave you alone.

>muh coc coc coc save de wimminz

>muh coc bad bloat bloat bloat

Microsoft up to their usual shenanigans, stop falling for FUD

>>974022

The problem is if this rescinding works, it can be done at any time, regardless of the existence of the CoC

>>973744

OYVEY

>>973981

NO SURVIVORS

fuck your laptops you'll use the kernel anyway

99% of servers of every major company use linux and they are obligated to follow copyright, and moving over to windows or apple would cost a combined trillions of dollars.

>>974022

>It's not so much "fuck you and fuck this CoC, I'm going to nuke everything"

Except that's exactly what it needs to be.

>>974164

who cares, this is what they get for lining their pockets with corporate money demanding gplv2 so they can use linux for botnet

>>974123

>or possibly even Google would step in

with free NSA backdoors!

>>974176

Theyre not gay if their benises touch, are they

>>973641 (OP)

>>973732

>>973744

I know this is you Mike and I just want to say, you are an epic troll, I love you (no fag obv.), well done. May you be rewarded with many virgins.

>>973981

>While I'm all for getting rid of SJWs in tech, if I understand things correctly, that course of action will most likely have the side-effect of killing the kernel too.

It's already dead.

>>973947

>This is like trying to save Linux by nuking it

That's fine. Think of it as a beautiful, blonde, blue eyed babe from a long, pure bloodline breeding with a nigger and then getting killed by him.

if you don't stay vigilant and pure, then your past achievments will simply fall through your fingers like sand.

the important thing is to use this truth as a weapon and shame everyone who bends their knee to the mentally ill/jews.

>>974025

>The future is female.

the most feminine thing a woman can do is bring children into this world.

but that's not what "feminism" and "liberalism" pushes, now, is it?

No, it is not.

>>973945

If you own something you can do anything you please with it.

https://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html

Only jews say otherwise.

>>974235

They probably already made enough money already anyway, if they're that good.

>>974025

>Fascists like yourself will never win. The future is female.

Probably sarcasm, but Hah, good fucking luck with that. 99% of women can't resist being emotional when it comes to making logical decisions and are willing to tear everything down for their feelings.

>>974025

Both ahmed and chong beg to differ

>>974235

I mean I would, no shits given, but a lot of people in FOSS treats this as a sort of foster family rather than what it really is (a bunch of autismal coding) and they freak out at the prospect of having to leave

>>974237

I believe your link is outdated.

DMCA (and WCT for the rest of the world) was implemented in 1998, Just after Windows NT 4 mentioned there was released.

It prohibited circumvention of DRM and steamrolled a lot of other rights too.

After years of political activism and legal battles it was amended here and there, but we are still being fucked over by it.

The shitstorm was huge, lasted for 20 years already and still ongoing, how do you not know any of this? Was you living under a rock somewhere this whole time?

>>974308

>Assange stated Debian was compromised years ago

Holy shit, proofs?

I actually need this.

>>973641 (OP)

This is actually how the previously most popular Minecraft server software was killed. Mojang revealed, around the time that Microsoft bought them, that they'd previously bought out the Bukkit project, and that they were going to implement a bunch of nofunz commie changes. One of the contributors to the project rescinded the GPL on his contributions, and DMCAd their site. Bukkit died overnight, although a previously established and independant fork was allowed to continue.

If even Microsoft was unwilling to fight this, then it may well be an effective strategy.

>>974310

It's common sense, why do you need a normalfag celebrity to validate it?

bump

>>974233

>Anyway, no matter what happens now the fact is FOSS is now bleeding to death and the real winners here are the megacorps like google and microsoft who get to make more money out of this.

Screencap this shit

The kikes have won a final and eternal victory, and there is nothing we can do about it.

==Even if we full this off, we will never, EVER, get anything resembling FOSS ever again.

>>974003

Reminder Mikee is a jew who hates white people.

>>974123

Step in and do what? Rewrite half the kernel? That'll take years. In the meantime Linux will be broken because tons of pieces will be missing.

>>973981

Scorched earth

>>974425

People who depend on Linux will turn against the CoC people and drive them out. There are people who depend on Linux to run their business and make money. If they lose Linux because of some social justice, liberal bullshit, they'll do everything they can to stop it.

There is no way Linux would be broken for years. There's way too much out there that depends on it, and those people wouldn't let it fall apart. I think you're just thinking of Linux as a consumer kernel. It's not, it's a supercomputer/server/HPC/etc kernel that can work on personal computers. If Linux was just a personal computer kernel, the project would be fucked. But look at how many supercomputers run Linux. Now imagine what happens if Linux dies, supercomputers die.

If you have a huge infrastructure of Linux, and developers are threatening your project because of social justice, they'll get rid of that social justice bullshit quickly.

>>974437

How deluded are you /pol/yp shit-for-brains, fucking hell? Social justice SELLS. Look at Nike, look at Netflix, look at Microsoft, look at fucking Google or Amazon ffs. The linux devs aren't going to abandon the kernel over "just don't be a dick xD" CoC. If they even try to leave over something like this they'll be banned from silicon valley tech giants and their subsidiaries. Do you not remember the blacklist rumour going around on hackernews in 2015 that the left was using to block conservatives or "fascists" from getting jobs in the industry? You're so fucking deluded that you don't realize you already lost. Just you counter-signaling is seen as le spooky neo nazism to the average normalnigger. You lost. Get your head out of your ass and work on building up your own company or initiative that can withstand social pressures from the left. Whinge all you want but just remember the dominance heirarchy now places traps and their mindless adherents above you.

>>974445

>Look at Nike, look at Netflix, look at Microsoft, look at fucking Google or Amazon ffs

All consumer brands and consumer products, shit-for-brains.

>>974447

It applies to the open sores community just as well and you know it /pol/tard.

>>974450

The entire point of my post was that SJW bullshit works well when you're dealing with consumers and people buying products. Linux is a tool that several businesses depend on, and that tool is in jeopardy because of social justice. This isn't a case of some marketing agency exploiting social justice to sell shit to consumers. This is a case of some SJW "coders" trying to influence an open source project that will affect a lot of businesses (not people).

I think SJWs overstepped their bounds here, they're not dealing with trying to sell games, shoes, and random amazon bullshit to consumers. They're dealing with very wealthy companies who depend on Linux's lively hood.

And considering the problems with Windows kernels, specially with performance, they don't have much of a choice besides Linux.

>>974452

It's pretty clear it's some SJW. SJW behavior

<look at me I'm so smart now I'm going to launch ad hominem attacks at everyone who disagrees

<btw I'm not ignorant like everyone who disagrees with me!!

Typical liberal name calling, mouth breathing retard who can't form any sort of arguments other than hurling a bunch of pre-programmed insult macros at people they disagree with.

I actually am a lawfag and was linked by a friend who asked for my opinion. I didn't read any post except the pictures in the OP. It's stupid nonsense and not how any of this works. Whoever wrote it knows nothing about law. So long, nerds!

>>974461

>it's stupid nonsense and not how any of htis works

>so long, nerds!

>I won't back up my post

>I'm a lawfag

>trust me goyim

Nice try, faggot.

>>974461

Please state at least 3 reasons why it is a nonsense, then.

>>974464

The autists are still in denial of the fact that FOSS as a whole is on its last legs and there's nothing we can do about it.

>>974461

You SJWs have a very unique posting style, you are always really obvious.

>>974466

You can't rescind a contract (which is voiding it as if it never existed) without a clause permitting it, not the other way around. Otherwise, in the case of fraud, misrepresentation, or other inequity, one could file a lawsuit to rescind a contract.

Ok, I give you that: This doesn't mean there's no way out of a contract, but the GPL isn't a contract as such. It's a license to the general public with conditions attached. Having granted these rights in writing, as copyright requires, and having induced all kinds of third parties to rely on that license, it would create absolute chaos to revoke all those licenses because some completely different person did something the person who granted the license doesn't like.

It might (*might*) be possible to sue the men who are thrusting their unwanted CoCs into everyone's business and deny them the right to use the GPL material in question if they're violating the conditions of the license by doing so. However, the GPL is sort of meant to stop that kind of thing, as are other things of that ilk like the Creative Commons licenses.

Now stop linking this fucking thread DANIEL

>>974469

THE FUCKING STATE OF HOPEFAGS

>>974469

Thank you.

I have very little knowledge to understand all that. However I'm sure that post will be something of use to the rest of /tech/ someday.

>>974024

You could beat the mensa test and still be a faggot

>>974485

Figures.

Why haven't you burnt Microsoft, Google, Facebook, et all..?

unconditionedwitness, more like uncontrolledopposition

>>973764

His ad for his book is offtopic

DOES ANYONE HERE LIKE MY CODE OF CONDUCT?!?

https://8ch.net/metatech/rules.html

https://8ch.net/metatech/rules.html

https://8ch.net/metatech/rules.html

stop bothering with the "legal" BS

illegal options like violence are the best option

>>974497

but who is brave enough?

>>974497

>>974498

Hello FBI

>>974497

Can I violently git reset --hard HEAD^ ?

>>974003

>MikeeUSA

>cock.li

kek

>>974315

I might be way off, but I thought his argument was that Bukkit had never been under the GPL to start with

>>974499

>every post that isn't a subservient nigger cattle is FBI

End your life.

>>974003

Oh wow:

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/MikeeUSA

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/MikeeUSA

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

https://mikeeusa.newgrounds.com

Quite the namefag

Stallman really loves software freedom when it means you give him your software and its free for him to profit off of your labor.

>>974445

reminder: blacklists are illegal

>>974519

Holy shit, I know this guy from >>>/vg/

>The Nexuiz gaming community has repeatedly rejected his submissions.

He's the guy that calls everyone "bugmen"

>>974519

HOLY SHIT, NOT EVEN >>>/cow/ LIKES HIM!!!

IT'S GOD DAMN REAL:

https://archive.is/https://8ch.net/cow/res/187931.html

>>974469

>it would create absolute chaos to revoke all those licenses because some completely different person did something the person who granted the license doesn't like.

Okay

>>974003

Wew lad. First of all, try judging the guy on his ideas, not his identity or typos. He got "rescind" right multiple times, yet you picked out one time he didn't? Besides, where I work we get emails from attorneys with spelling errors in them. I don't know if they're competent at what they do, but it's not like no attorney ever makes spelling mistakes. Second, people can and do get fired and essentially blacklisted for going against the left's insanity. Why would a lawyer (law being an extremely Jewish profession) in his right mind want to go against this CoC in public with his own name or even email address attached?

Now, if he is telling the truth or not, I don't know. Maybe not, it's certainly possible. But whether he is or isn't a lawyer, if he's right that developers can do this, then they indeed should use it to fight back against the jewry that is the CoC. I don't have faith that the GPL alone can protect Linux. CoC faggotry is just as bad as for its health as CIA nigger backdoors or corporate bullshit. That shit will snowball.

>If he really wants to live life Old Testament style, why is he into coding?

Lol.

Gregory Smith, I admit, you made me laugh.

>>974495

Quite sure /tech/ would similarly have a shitstorm if and when the board owner adds new rules, to compare the addition of a CoC that wasn't there before, that many do not agree to.

Found something called "Coalition against the COC of Linux", get as many members with as many contributions as possible, demand the CoC be removed or have the contributions of every member of the coalition relicensed to an inappropriate license.

Too bad no one's going to actually do it. Cucks aren't exactly known for fighting back.

>>974614

He's saying someone should found a group

>>974622

Founded it!

tips.fbi.gov/coalition_of_divide_n_conquer

>>974445

Name a company that started with social justice and became successful. Not companies that were already run by billion dollar corporations and they added a little office for the blue hairs.

>>974729

Librem. If you mean actual social justice as opposed to the perversion of it often used on image boards and tumblr.

>>973758

>How difficult would it be for them to move to GPLv3?

Impossible at this point.

>>973641 (OP)

So let me get this straight. You think the jewdicial system is going to enforce your license revocation, when you're a literal nazi?

Goyim, I...

Shut this toxic thread down mods. Now!

>>974729

Bumble + google.

>>974489

Because they can be dealt with by simply eliminating their money supply, diseased Linux requires something more elaborate, to eliminate corporate donations of devtime. Remember the "opponent who doesn't need to breath" memo?

>>974730

>actual social justice

Fuck off, retard.

>>974445

If "all is lost", then there is nothing to lose in trying, right?

>>974799

So why aren't you cutting off their money supply, instead clamoring for the years libre work on a monolithic kernel under monarchy to be ruined by the nobility that supported it?

>>974445

This must the blackpill fag that is spamming the entire board, the absolute state of braindead "lefites"

Revoke the fuck out of the contributions, pull the rug on these rainbow haired gender cunts.

Fyi this can only be done for code that was submitted between 25 and 30 years ago.

https://www.copyright.gov/docs/203.html

>Notices of termination may be served no earlier than 25 years after the execution of the grant or, if the grant covers the right of publication, no earlier than 30 years after the execution of the grant or 25 years after publication under the grant (whichever comes first).

>>975186

Public domain kernel when?

>>975186

Linux initial release was 27 years ago. If any part of the ancient code is still in modern releases, it can be terminated by Linus himself or any other dev that helped him between 1991-1993.

>>973641 (OP)

RESCIND RESCIND

https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/#comment-1117

>>975186

But Linux for the original code was copyright under Finnish law.

Has it been confirmed if this is possible?

I have a feeling even if it was possible, it wouldn't work as we expected it to. For example, people using it for reasons besides the CoC.

If it isn't possible, which alternatives are we looking at?

>>975349

No one has bothered to look into it so far. Much like a standoff everyone has their guns pointed at everyone else. It's understandable though. It's only been a few days. With the new attack from the hambeast on twitter people are starting to pull triggers like >>975186. Won't be long now before we know one way or the other.

>>974793

>retard can't read

>>975278

I like heresy better

https://github.com/minexew/Shrine

>>974445

>Social justice SELLS

>Look at Nike, look at Netflix, look at Microsoft, look at fucking Google or Amazon ffs

>Nike

<Nike's Kaepernick Ad Has Cost The Company Over $4 Billion So Far

>Netflix

<Netflix in Free Fall After Hiring the Obamas

>Microsoft

Doesn't count. It's an unofficial government agency.

>Google

Same thing as Microsoft, except it foments civil war in foreign nations.

>Amazon

Same thing as Microsoft and Google, except it runs NSA's projects on EC2 instances and spies on everything with Alexa.

A more accurate phrase is: Government contracts SELLS

>>974217

If you think about it, future at any point in history is female. I mean, how else do you get children?

>>974445

>polyps

>>>/leftypol/

>Social justice SELLS. Look at Nike, look at Netflix, look at Microsoft, look at fucking Google or Amazon ffs.

Look at their giant subsidies, anti-competition laws and other shit. The truth is that they wouldn't achieve shit, if not for the fact that their fellow white people in government favour them.

5/7 got me to reply

>>974001

>First gpl doesn't allow someone to sell their software

This is a lie.

>now you can't relicense software once licensed

This is also a lie.

>How people fall for stallman is astonishing.

You're a shill. Kill yourself.

>>975235

How exactly would a non-copyrighted kernel help here?

>>973867

You can tell when someone draws nothing but dogs when everything they draw looks like a dog.

>>976197

The GPL doesn't allow someone to sell the copyright to their software once it is licensed under the GPL. The GPL usurps the copyright to the software from the author.

>>976236

Read it again, nigger. This time use your brain and don't just skim.

>>976236

I've sold my software (I own the copyright to that software) under the GPL in the past. What happened was that my customer asked me to write some software, I quoted a price for writing the requested software and then I wrote it and gave the customer a copy under the GPL.

KEK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5VvJiNUCIA

>>974730

actual social justice would be to boo someone who did something socially wrong and nothing more

>>976242

You didn't sell the software because you didn't sell the copyright to the software. You can't sell the copyright to software licensed under the GPL because the GPL usurps the copyright.

>>975186

>Fyi this can only be done for code that was submitted between 25 and 30 years ago.

That's still the vast majority of the project. How fucking useful is quarter-century old code anyway, especially if you have no-talent landwhales that have to restore all the old functionality on the quick?

>>976313

We know:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8139#comment-2043019

He's agreeing with OP, and I disagree.

A fork it's what needs to be done.

It worked for BSD, it will work for Linux.

Competing Linux kernels will only make development better.

>>976316

I agree, but who here among isn't just a larping pajeet and could actually lead the project. Certainly not me.

>>976301

Exactly, even if they somehow retained core code, they would suffer death by a thousand cuts and be incapable of suitable replacement or competent substitute coding.

This will absolutely hurt them.

>>976325

I'm physically handicapped to setup a shit openic+eepsite to make a random fork.

Any of these poster could easily set one up.

And honestly, the only interest I had in Linux is being shattered by Valve.

>>976325

I don't think anyone on /tech/ has the skills to do it. The other thing is finding someone who can wrangle a bunch of autists to do their work instead of trying to fork the first time they sperg out on the team. Theo might be the only one can do it, but I don't think he's interested, besides they're trying to job lynch mob him right now.

>>976364

You don't need skills, you just need the willingness to try and the understanding that you might fail. It's like memes, you can't force them. You don't just go

>I'm gonna start a whole massive open source project involving hundreds of people and changing the world!

You go

>I'm gonna open source my project because I think it's useful

And if it's actually useful it will take off. That's what meritocracy is all about.

>>976367

I just want to re-phrase this a bit too because people might read it and think I'm saying that meritocracy doesn't have anything to do with skill. This is partially true, and partially false. t's not about your skill because it's not about "you", it's about how good the thing you made is. This is where we have to fall back on the tried and true methods of invention, which involve willingness to try and willingness to fail because the vast majority of the shit you produce will not actually be good.

>>973981

>the side-effect of killing the kernel too.

It will kill the kernel at it's current form.

Linux has been dealing with shitty software by having lots of alternatives through forking. The problem with the current state of things is that the kernel is too big to fork. Apart from any technical improvements to what currently exists a modular kernel should be a priority so as to not let this thing happen again.

>>976236

>The GPL doesn't allow someone to sell the copyright to their software once it is licensed under the GPL.

This is a lie. Dual licensing exists. Kill yourself, you fucking shill.

>The GPL usurps the copyright to the software from the author.

It does not. It explicitly relies on copyright law for it to work. Stop lying.

>>974437

Linux will never die, it will simply be replaced by a conglomerate controlled backdoored kernel of the same name, while the propaganda machine keeps turning to make people believe this change happened for 'social justice' or some other meaningless bullshit.

>>976355

Gaming is the same as it ever was.

>muh journalism

Same as it ever was.

>>976313

>I urge that we all step back from the edge of this cliff

NO SURVIVORS

>>975278

There a guide on how to code in HolyC?

>>976472

The GPL regulates and makes under obligation the author to distribute copies of source code. This usurps the copyright from the author.

>>976527

>The GPL regulates and makes under obligation the author to distribute copies of source code.

Yes, as the license specifically states that code must be distributed with that license. However, the original author can, at the same time, license a closed source version exactly like the GPL version to someone else, or he can even sell his copyright to someone else, who may, in turn retract the GPL license the original author gave out. Kill youself, kike. You know you're lying.

>>974461

Does you dad work at Nintendo too?

>>976494

It's on the official TempleOS iso: https://archive.org/download/TempleOS_ISO_Archive/TempleOSCDV4.13.ISO

Also,

https://web.archive.org/web/20170204193914/http://www.templeos.org/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html#l1

https://templeos.holyc.xyz/Wb/Doc/HolyC.html#l1

>>976554

oy gevalt! the goyim know!! quickly SHUT IT DOWN

>>976530

You are talking about two different versions of software, i.e. two different software. The author loses all copyright to the software when licensing under the GPL.

>>976313

Cucked out hard and labeled the "rebels" as an "other" group rather than the core group who just got shit on by the elites.

Burn it all and laugh at the guy who decided to write an essay of preachy bullshit while ignoring the actual arguments being made by the people upset.

>I'm an enlightened centrist, I won't take sides

>Proceeds to use loaded language

Every time.

>>976580

Dude is asking to please find a compromise instead of blowing up the best thing free software ever produced, he thinks the goal of Linux should reamin coding and not change into social justice, and yet you're too much of an extremist retard to understand that.

>>976589

The retard here is you. You seem to think Linux isn't already infected with terminal cancer. The question is do you blow it up with radiation and maybe kill the cancer or do you leave it until it dies from the infection?

There are only 2 options. Our option enables a rebirth, the other option does not.

>>975338

Yes but copyright treaties apply.

>>976602

The GPL usurps copyright to the software from the author through obligations forced upon the author.

I hope everyone realizes that even in the event of a worst-case scenario, we get to continue to use the Linux kernel for ~2 years before shit gets really bad. Degredation of code quality takes time with a project of this size.

>>976632

In addition to the decline of code quality, the biggest immediate threat is that top developers getting stasi'd by sjw fags

>>976632

How do you know they won't just break the kernel next week by fucking with all the language like Master/Slave so nothing can talk to each other any more?

>>976634

For the same reason it will take a bit for the kernel to decay as a whole: even though there are people who signed off on it, that doesn't mean they just immediately abandon all their quality development practices.

What we are worried about is non-capable people getting promoted more and more, higher and higher, to the point where the software quality starts to degrade. None of that has happened yet and won't for a while. Even when it starts, the non-capable people will be outnumbered by the capable. Eventually, they will be equal and we will reach an era of stagnation within the kernel, and when they are finally a simple majority, then code quality will go to shit. Of course there are modifiers to this such as developers leaving, slow adoption of the inclusiveness, etc. so it's difficult to predict. The point being that this degredation will take time, so much in fact that it will allow for alternatives to become more viable in the process. It's impossible for the decline to be a giant cliff drop.

>>976598

His email wasn't directed at the SJWs, it was directed at the fence sitters, moderates, and the politically ignorant who don't understand why a CoC is fundamentally a bad thing. He explained to them that the CoC is a total hijacking of the Linux kernel project's goals, not just some rules about being polite. It also puts those who are pushing the CoC in the position of having to clearly outline what their goals actually are.

>>976632

>we get to continue to use the Linux kernel for ~2 years before shit gets really bad

That's two years of development time that could be better spent on a new or better project. Why waste two years of work?

>>976633

>the biggest immediate threat is that top developers getting stasi'd by sjw fags

It will get to the point where just leaving the project, even quietly, will be considered a "nazi microaggression" and the dev will be witch hunted and vilified.

>>976685

That is indeed who it is directed to, but they would have to have balls to take this path, if they had balls we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place and if Linus took an extended break we'd be spending our time right now freaking out about bad commits without all this other stuff.

This is basically a Hail Mary pass in Q4 of an American Football game on his part, there is a very minimal chance it will work. The only important part of the post is the point where ESR said that anti-CoC is actually the side with the gun, not the other way around. I'm sure something stupid will happen soon which will cause someone to pull the trigger.

>>976689

>leaving projects considered aggressive action

Unironically true considering these are the sort of individuals who believe themselves to be entitled to the labor of others. Never thought I'd see the day where Linux devs may go Galt.

>>976693

>they would have to have balls to take this path, if they had balls we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place

The point is that the people the email was directed at don't even understand that they need to have the balls to do something, they don't perceive the CoC as the threat that it is. The intent of the email was to clearly outline the actual ramifications so that those people realize they actually need to grow some sac and take action.

>The only important part of the post is the point where ESR said that anti-CoC is actually the side with the gun, not the other way around.

Yeah, he simultaneously explained to the ignorant ones that not only are they in grave danger, but that they are already holding that gun. Quite a revelation for them.

>>976689

Polite sage.

I wasn't saying waste the work, I was saying that people shouldn't worry. I was attempting to argue that we in fact have plenty of time to erect another alternative or improve an already existing one.

>>976600

>You seem to think Linux isn't already infected with terminal cancer.

But it isn't. A handful of powerful community figures pushing a change does not mean the entire community is doomed, and it does not mean the software is doomed (you can always fork a pre-change version).

>>976598

>He's trying to offer an olive branch to "people" who don't understand the meaning of peace or cooperation.

He isn's, he is trying to both support and warn the side with the killswitch: he points out how their threats are credible, and then argues about the importance of keeping Linux alive.

And who cares about keeping Linux alive? Not the 5 minutes of fame literally whos rubbing their CoCs everywhere they can, but the people that have spent years and decades with Linux, the people that actually use Linux, the people with the killswitch.

The fluff about compromise is to show newfags the issue in clear, neutral, and factual terms, and offer a clear, neutral, and factual solution to said issue: that way anyone joining the discussion can see which side isn't trying to follow the obvious solution, and be wary of them.

The victory on the field is already decided by the killswitch, the issue is winning the PR fight afterwards, and this piece was working towards that.

Again: extremism is the mind killer, the sooner you realize that the sooner you stop giving your actual enemies ammunition.

>>976580

Go read his comments under his latest blog post.

Why aren't we using their own CoC to get rid of them? The fucking CoC itself is so vague and overreaching that borderline ANYTHING can be used up. Just get them to violate it, then without a word have them removed from the project.

>>977011

Because the CoC is only applied unilaterally.

>>977011

SJWs aren't beholden to their own rules, man. That's like rule #1 of being a SJW. People tell SJWs all the time when they violate their own CoC. It doesn't matter. The CoC is there for power and control.

>>977011

How new are you?

>>977011

To add specific examples to the other replies you've gotten, look up "progressive stack" in the context of social organization, specifically Occupy.

It's the privilege meter embodied in policy.

>>977011

Because none of them are in the project to be removed.

>>976570

>You are talking about two different versions of software

No, you can literally license the code to different people with different licenses.

>The author loses all copyright to the software when licensing under the GPL.

Not true, the author retains copyright and is free to sell it or rescind a license. Stop lying you fucking kike.

>>977127

>Centrism = Not holding serious beliefs

Opinion discarded.

>>977157

Being fundamentally opposed to "extremism" is extremism.

>>977168

this is now a radical militant centrist thread

We may have a problem:

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

>>977926

That's not a problem. That's only a problem for the sub-licensing of GPLv2 software. As the original software author, you may withdraw a license at any time for any reason. This is law, which supersedes any wording of any license.

>>974469

This is bullshit.

(Berne Convention) Copyright law (USA et. al.) hinges on redistribution. You can't force people to stop using the program you contributed code to, but you can assert your copyright and prevent further redistribution of your copyrighted intellectual property.

The GNU project knows this. That is why EMACs and GCC etc. require contributors to sign over their copyright ownership to the GNU project before they will accept their code (Linux does not). The GNU project which spawned the GPL cited concerns over whether devs could rescind their permission and prevent future redistribution, thus GPLv3 was born (Linux is stuck on GPLv2).

Since Linus played fast and loose with the assignment of copyright and also chose to remove "or any later version" phrase from the GPLv2 that Linux is licensed under, this means the Linux Foundation can not relicense Linux Kernel under GLPv3 to take advantage of the language therein by which contributors agree not to rescind.

Being that Linux is stuck with GPLv2, AND they did not require submitters to transfer their copyright to Linux Foundation, the individual copyright holders can, in fact, use the DMCA takedown procedure for any NEWLY DISTRIBUTED product which contains their code.

This problem is the direct fault of Linus Torvalds whom we frequently harangued about his lack of desire to solve this exact problem by creating a GLPv3 path and/or instituting a copyright ownership transfer requirement, precisely so that something like this could not happen.

Given that there are tons of vocal and vitriolic outcry over Linus's failure to shield Linux Kernel from this very sort of attack, and that the GPLv3 was created to alleviate the issue, I would say that anyone who downplays the risk of mass rescinding of code is either a plant or just plain ignorant about intellectual property law and the Linux Kernel.

TL;DR: We have known about this rescinding of copyright problem for a long fucking time, and now Marxists have decided to use this weakness to stifle a beacon of cishet western male achievement: Either we fight back against CoC and go through the arduous task of stopping development of Linux while we rewrit it with proper GPLv3 licensing and copyright transfer requirements -- a win for human-resource-tier anti-colonialist SJWs -- or else we let the CoC become yet another tool which allows SJWs to harass and deplatform the right (another win for SJWs).

The middle path is that we use the CoC against SJWs who frequently post insensitive things like #killAllMen or "Die cis scum"-- but that won't work if moderating the submitters is outsourced to neon-haired HR goons.

I'm afraid the nerds weren't politically aware enough to recognize the anti-colonialist Marxist left for the anti-progress enemy it has become. Either way: Trump is now guaranteed another 4 years in office, IMO. Austin, TX is fast becoming the new Silicon Valley, an exodus is under way. Have a YT vid about anti-colonialism to better grasp this "ruin the west" SJW ideology:

www . youtube . com/watch?v=LAjGxvCc3qE (44min, but worth it).

TL;DR of the TL;DR: Known legal exploit against Linux may now become a real threat thanks to tech-nerds' ignorance of politics and SJW's demoralization strategy.

>>978116

>Trump is now guaranteed another 4 years in office

Doesn't matter when Dems are going to be the majority in Congress come November.

>>978119

Ah, the beginning of the cuckening.

>>977127

>literally posting reddit memes

You're acting like a chapo trap house retard, but on 8chan.

Here's a bit of prior case law concerning rescinding FLOSS code due to reputation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobsen_v._Katzer

http://archive.is/3equL (as #GG taught us, archive everything)

> The Jacobsen case is noteworthy in United States copyright law because Courts clarified the enforceability of licensing agreements on both open-source software and proprietary software. The case established the rule of law that terms and conditions of the Artistic License 1.0 are "enforceable copyright conditions".[3]

Of primary note, Jacobson, author of a Java Model Railroad Interface [JMRI] software was able to prohibit use of his software by another even though it was published as open source. In fact the case resulted in a permanent injunction enjoining Katzer [the infringer] from "reproducing, by download or others, JMRI material, modifying JMRI material or distributing JMRI material".

This case did invoke the DMCA. So, the Linux Foundation really can be forced to not redistribute contributions if the authors of said patches get pissed enough about the SJW shenanigans.

Here's an interesting comment:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/coraline-ada-ehmke-corey-dale-ehmke.31003/page-12

http://archive.is/nDIoY

> One clue might be that Linus’ daughter (Patricia Torvalds) has signed Ehmke’s manifesto: https://archive.fo/mocLU#selection-2695.1-2695.19

> An interview with Patricia Torvalds

https://archive.fo/fPvDo

> Personally, I’m very focused on intersectional feminism, which is feminism as it applies to other aspects of oppression like racism and classism. The Facebook page Guerrilla Feminism is a great example of an intersectional feminism and has done so much to educate me. I currently run the Portland branch.

> Feminism is also important to me in terms of diversity in tech, although as an upper-class white woman with strong connections in the tech world, the problems here affect me much less than they do other people. The same goes for my involvement in intersectional feminism. Publications like Model View Culture are very inspiring to me, and I admire Shanley Kane so much for what she does.

Research "Shanely Kane" and you'll see that Linus is screwed even if he wasn't pozzed. I know both of his parents were radicals and his father studied under the Soviets.

I remember him admitting to be commie albeit jokingly

> "... he accused, 'free software? What are you some kind of commie?' Yes! I am, so what?"

(me paraphrasing from memory)

A little far fetched, but this could have even been a convenient exit strategy: Throw in with whatever Marxist crap is dominant at the time to cause the most damage possible to teh ebil capitalists (Google, etc.) who are making money on Linux. That this poison pill happens just when the left is taking serious damage in the public sphere, with everyone being fed up with Stasi speech police, may not be accidental.

Let's just hope the tech bubble / financial collapse happens when we have someone like Trump in office (who would buy back our ridiculously inflated debt at a lower rate) rather than Hillary (who would get us in perpetual debt with the IMF to pay back the FED's highway robbery prices). It's a good thing the Internet itself can't be taken down by just a few smartyrs with computers...

>>978131

>Hillary shows a 99% chance of winning, give up!!!!!!!

MikeeUSA pls go.

>>976574

This. We need a spy.

?

Rundown?

What is this about?

>>976580

>>976589

You do realize ESR is a gun nut and race realist right? His patience is very limited, lets watch him go 1488 on Linux... it will be great.

>>976598

>>976969

There is no stopping of the cattle train, LET IT HAPPEN ESR (mein Fuhrer)

>>978432

Interesting. That would be the first case when Microshock could fail in their EEE. They have hands deep inside Linux, but they dont own all of it, so that's for Embrace. Extend is also partial and they're already moving to last E. I think Redmond is both very bold and desperate. That's why they're pushing SaaS and fucking with Loonix at the same time. Something very wrong is going inside that company. I mean worse than typical Redmond.

>>973987

Hopefully this will be a wakeup call to the fucking retarded slobs at the FSF to fucking finish the Hurd after nearly 35 fucking years

>>983612

You know if it weren't for Stallman, the FSF would probably jump on the CoCwagon right? I have a feeling that once he either dies or retires they'll get CoC'd pretty hard.

>>978432

>He's right, you know

No he isn't.

Just look at the insanely convoluted wording he uses to pretend Linux is close to dominance in the desktop world.

>>983603

>Interesting

Did you even bother checking linux on desktop stats, or just took the tweet as true because it's what you want to believe?

lel absolutely nothing is happening and nothing will happen /pol/tards supremely btfo once again

>>984463

Not them, but where's the fork?

>>984460

>lel absolutely nothing is happening and nothing will happen /pol/tards supremely btfo once again

Linux died when grsecurity went closed.

Anyone who runs an internet facing server without it is a fool.

What do lawfaggots think of all of this?

>>984501

>grsecurity

>supporting a company that kicks on to the curb if you exercise your GPL rights

>supporting a developer who likes to blacklist bug reporters in a fit of autistic rage for embarrassing him on Twitter

>supporting a developer who likes to hide vulnerabilities in competing software to 1-up them publicly.

Unironically kys. grsec and Brad Spengler are a cancer on FOSS.

>>984506

All of that is true _Now_.

Which is why:

>Linux died when grsecurity went closed.

Is true.

>>984506

Yes, Brad Spengler is blatantly violating the GPL with his additional agreement.

Yes any linux programmer who own's his own copyright to his code which has been modified by Spengler's derivative work has standing to sue Spengler.

Maybe someday we'll hear of some lawsuits.

Still, linux without grsec is trash.

Support the unofficial fork.

>>984506

What did you think when Bruce Perens caused all 73 or so of Brad Spengler's customers to drop him immediately?

(It came out in the court documents that he lost all his customers)

(and is also now on the hook for 230K or so in damages to Bruce Peren's law-firm for attorneys fees)

>>973641 (OP)

Wait, so free software isn't free anymore?

>>984514

>Wait, so free software isn't free anymore?

If you rescind your non-exclusive license grant in the US of A from X, while still being the copyright holder, while never saying to X that you were not going to rescind said grant, and X payed you nothing for the grant to begin with.

Indeed, it is not free for X any longer.

Guess what free software project can check all the boxes in relation to US copyright and property law...

The GPLv2 is not a contract. It is supported by no consideration.

>by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Monday October 01, 2018 @10:21AM (#57403506) Homepage Journal

> >What consideration was given?

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

Incorrect.

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

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

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

By law this is barred.

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

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

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

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

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

SFConservancy misleads in "update" explaining GPLv2.

Section 4 is not operative against the grantor of the license, and makes no claim to be so.

It is speaking only of licensees and what might be described as sub-licensees.

Section 0 confirms that "You" refers to licensees.

Section 4 simply states that if a licensee loses his license, that does not cause the sub-licensee to lose his license in-turn.

>>984518

What the fuck, that's like retroactively punishing people for doing something before there was a law against it. The entire idea of being upset and then rescinding your license to sue someone for using the license prior to is complete bullshit.

How did this happen? I've never heard of this code of conduct thing before, how new is it? For what purpose?

x

>>984522

>IANAL but I call bullshit on being able rescind. How would that even work properly? If you gave me source code for your GPL'd program and I modify and distribute it, who wins? The only way I could see this being reasonable is if you can only rescind your own code for your own releases after that point. e.g if you rescind v2.0 of your program, only v2.1+ can be closed source.

>

>Someone explain to me how this shit is supposed to work logically?

Call bullshit all you want. Indeed, you are NOT a lawyer, your opinion has no value nor merit regarding the law because you are an uneducated lay-person in this field.

Here is how it works:

Defaut rule: All rights reserved.

Default rule: non-exclusive gratuitous licenses are revocable by the grantor.

(Gratuitous means _you_ didn't pay the grantor anything)

These rules can attempt to be changed via the grantor if he wishes.

The GPL v2 changes some of these default rules.

It fails to mention revocation by the grantor.

Fails to mention the time-period for-which the grant is in effect.

Thus the default rules apply.

However you have NOT been given anything. Even if the code is in your hands you have N O T (NOT) (__NOT__) been given it. You have ONLY been ALLOWED to molest it, by the will of the owner of the code.

Simple. You fucking moron.

>>984522

Oh, and before you mention it, you stupid fucking peon.

"Forever" is NOT the default time-period.

So since the GPLv2 doesn't even mention how long the license is in effect, courts have to figure it out.

Do you think they choose "Forever"?

Ofcourse you do.

But nope: that would violate the rule against perpetuities in several juristictions (know what that is you fucking "DUUURRR I CALL BULLSHIT" moron?) which apply said rule to personal property.

(And a perpetual license would also be unreasonable).

So guess what they decide?

An omitted license term of years assumes the license is valid "as long as the parties agree".

So there. TWO ways to rescind the license.

One based on the underlying property law ((which underlays the copyright law) which will work all over the USA) regarding non-exclusive licenses for which no consideration was paid and which are gratuities.

The second which works on the lack of a defining term regarding the period for which the allowance is in effect.

Fuck you.

>>984522

And guess what terms the GPLv3 (which linux is NOT under) added?

Yep: a no-revocation-by-grantor clause and a clause giving a time-limit to the license grant (which the GPLv3 states as the term of the copyright on the program)

Wonder why this is, mr "I CALL BULLSHIT"?

Yes, I am a licensed Attorney.

Fuck you.

Here's a case in NY where a Software distributor agreement violated New York's Rule Against Perpetuities

McAllister Software Systems, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc., No. 06-0093, 2008 WL 922328 (E.D. Mo. April 2, 2008)

So we see that atleast one court in an important juristiction is applying the RAP with regards to intellectual property.

So:

Attack 1: license rescision under property law (non-exclusive gratuity for which no consideration was given, and no utterances to irrevokability by grantor vis-a-vis licensee uttered, thus can be rescinded at will).

Attack 2: license rescision citing no term-of-years, thus at-will licensing (until the parties no-longer agree). (This one certainly works in the UK)

Juristictional attack: if defendant claims license is perpetual [Or you could simply use it as an alternative argument from the get-go]

Attack 2b: license is a nullity (void from it's inception) due to RAP.

Wallstreet is in NY. I wonder if they use and/or modify linux kernel for anything?

>>985313

>>985316

>>985318

>sperging out over three comments about a simple legal clarification

Holy shit. Imagine being this autistic. I doubt you or the retard who made the original claim is a lawyer either. Please do the everyone a favour and kill yourself.

>>985420

lol, butt devastated much?

>>985333

Another stupid question for mr lawyer please. I see projects use code from "gpl-compatible" licensed projects in their gpl-v3 licensed projects, essentially taking code and relicensing it without permission. Is this legal and if so can we not fork Linux and change the license to gpl-v3?

>>985429

>Another stupid question for mr lawyer please. I see projects use code from "gpl-compatible" licensed projects in their gpl-v3 licensed projects, essentially taking code and relicensing it without permission. Is this legal and if so can we not fork Linux and change the license to gpl-v3?

What you are allowed to do is to follow the terms set out in the license given by the grantor.

You cannot do anything that contrivines these terms.

Only the owner can decide how his property is to be used.

If the other license has terms that contrivine the original license, then yes it is a license violation

(for instance, according to the GPL v2 atleast, which has the no-additional-restrictive-terms clause)

(which governs the licensee - sublicensee relationship regarding the code)

(so yes, GRSecurity is violating an explicit term with their "you can't redistribute" codicil)

So no, a licensee can't relicense as GPL v3, since the licensee don't own the code in question, and the GPL v2 doesn't grant the licensee the permission to proffer differing terms regarding the same or derivative works.

Those "relicensing" are likely just violating the license and don't know it nor care

(and probably never read the grant to begin with).

It's simply not their property so they cannot decide how it is to be used.

And yes: if the BSD guys were angry about their code being "Relicensed" as GPL...

they could simply rescind their gratuitious license, and later sue when they are ignored.

(Now yes, I know that the 3 clause BSD license trys to sound like a contract by saying

"if the following conditions are met", while the GPL trys to make sure it does not

sound like a contract... but neither are supported by any consideration, nor has either

of the parties ever contacted eachother, nor has anyone agreed to anything)

>>985420

>Holy shit. Imagine being this autistic.

One could be an attorney or a programmer or both...

> I doubt you or the retard who made the original claim is a lawyer either.

Doubt all you want.

You don't know what you don't know (such as the terms used in the proffered arguments).

Both I and the orator of the original claim are, indeed, of the class: licensed attorney.

>Please do the everyone a favour and kill yourself.

A take off on "If you kill your enemies they win"?

"If you kill yourself, they lose!"

(Btw: tell us why you doubt, so we may laugh at your workman's mind)

>>985429

(Just the added no-revocation-by-grantor and the actually included term-of-years (how did the original drafters of v2 miss this?) makes GPLv3 incompatible with GPLv2, let alone the patent issues addressed in GPLv3. Quite a few extra terms that are "more restrictive" are added. But the licensee was never granted permission to change any terms to begin with, so perhaps the point is moot either way)

>>985429

Note: when a license asks only that you credit the author,

like the BSD one does.

You can include it in a project that does just that.

Until... the copyright owner says you can't anymore.

(He never said he wouldn't rescind at a later date, so how have you detrimentally relied on something he never spoke? And you never paid him for anything either (consideration))

The code is NOT re-licensed as GPL however.

It is not anyone else's property to re-license.

Now the additional code people might put around the BSD'd code, they own those pieces. So one line might be BSD licensed, the other added one might be GPL'd, etc.

And if the authors start to become disenfranchised there are legal steps they can take to... disentangle... their property.

What do you call a dead lawyer?

A good start.

>>985443

No arguments to make I see.

Then again, most lawyers surely oppose men marrying cute young female children, so YHWH would likely agree with you in most cases.

(Most lawyers being anglo-american scum who worship women as all anglo-americans do)

>>985454

MikeeUSA has joined the raid.

https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/MikeeUSA

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#187093805

> Anonymous ID:sqkjzTNz Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:23:36 No.187093805 ViewReport

> Working with a group of 5 other devs thus far to rescind our code. Some of whom have been major contributers.

>Was hard to find a decent attorney with tech based experience due to the fact that a lot of heavy weighters are going to be extremely upset. Drafting legal docs to make it as impactful as possible.

>

>All that work and you fuck us over, Linus. Now we fuck you back.

------

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#q187094037

> leiqdbSauceNAO Screen Shot 2018-09-26 at 8.24.1 (...).png, 136KiB, 458x928

> Anonymous ID:zDdj02sY Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:25:31 No.187094037 Report

> Quoted By: >>187094386 >>187094624 >>187099544

>Stop fucking commenting as if this would ground the internet to a halt overnight. Revoking code means it can't be in the next version, it doesn't invalidate prior versions. 80% of the code submitted to the Linux project is from Redhat or some other major company like Intel or AMD. That other 20% is minor shit except for the few people who have been around forever. This fucking threat is hollow because no company is going to pull their code because of a few trannies. This CoC thing will be ignored because big money rests on the project being successful. The moment this fucking dipshit starts becoming a liability the big money will smite him full force.

------

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#q187094386

> Anonymous ID:sqkjzTNz Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:28:48 No.187094386 Report

> Quoted By: >>187104619

> >>187094037

> >except for the few people who have been around forever.

>

>Ding ding.

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

https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/

>thejynxed

>

>My company is already considering the full withdrawal of all contributed code to the kernel project and related embedded kernel projects. You literally can\u2019t run embedded Linux on industrial controls or handheld scanners without this code.

>September 22, 2018 Reply

>>985682

Any news on this?

Has anyone heard anything further?

We only learned of the GRSecurity vs Bruce Perens suit months later...

Why do all the techies choose to believe the Software Freedom Conservancy's "clarification" when it is just pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking which cannot be held against the grantor?

The software freedom conservancy has tendered its response:

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

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

""

"The GPLv2 have several provisions that, when taken together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor. "

""

It cites:

" That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance" (GPLv2§4). "

However this is disingenuous

The full text of section 4 is as follows:

""

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program

except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt

otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is

void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under

this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such

parties remain in full compliance.

""

The "You" in section 4 is speaking of the licensee regarding sub-licensees, it is not speaking to the licensor/copyright-holder.

IE: if the licensee loses his license, through operation of the automatic-revocation provisions, the sub-licensees do not also lose their licenses.

IE: The language is disclaiming a chain topography for license distribution, and instead substituting a hub-and-spoke topography (all licenses originating from the copyright holder, not the previous-in-line)

GPLv3 added a no-rescission clause for a reason: the reason being to attempt to create an estoppel defense for the licensees against the licensor. You will notice that Eben Moglen never speaks on these issues. (He preumably is aware of the weaknesses vis a vis the US copyright regime.)

Section 6 further clarifies the hub-and-spoke model:

""

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the

Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the

original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to

these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further

restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to

this License.

""

The memorandum posted then goes on to a discussion of estoppel, detrimental reliance, etc; noting that users may have relied on the software and their licenses may be estopped from being revoked from said users since doing so might cause them unanticipated loss. This is speaking of already published, existent, versions of the program used by end users.

The memorandum seems to ignore what happens to "upstream" once said project receives a revocation notice. Thought it may be possible that users of a published piece of software may have defenses to license revocation, the same is not true regarding the rescinded property vis-a-vis future prospective versions of the software nor of future prospective licensees of said software.

That is: once the grant to use the code in question is rescinded, future versions of the software may not use that code. Current users of the software may be-able to raise an estoppel / detrimental reliance defense regarding the current published software, however the programmers working on the next version of said software cannot continue to use the property in future versions of the software (such would be a copyright violation once the gratuitous license is rescinded by the grantor).

Additionally, prospective-licensees, once the grant was rescinded and such was published, would have no same-such estoppel defense (not being user-licensees at the time of revocation).

(Ignoring this eventuality in the published memorandum, is, of-course, by design.)

(Now, to note: the free-software movement is focused on the freedom of the user, not the progenitors of the software, so one could certainly say that ignoring some developer-focused analysis is consistent with their prerogative...)

>>985736

This is ignored by all the techies who cite the SFConservancy's "clarification" as evidence.

They imagine they have won.

And in the minds of the public: they have.

The refutation of SFConservancy's hurried parry is ignored or unseen.

Re: http://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/

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

Section 4 is not operative against the grantor of the license, and makes no claim to be so.

It is speaking only of licensees and what might be described as sub-licensees.

Section 0 confirms that "You" refers to licensees.

Section 4 simply states that if a licensee loses his license, that does not cause the sub-licensee to lose his license in-turn.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#187093805

> Anonymous ID:sqkjzTNz Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:23:36 No.187093805 ViewReport

> Working with a group of 5 other devs thus far to rescind our code. Some of whom have been major contributers.

>Was hard to find a decent attorney with tech based experience due to the fact that a lot of heavy weighters are going to be extremely upset. Drafting legal docs to make it as impactful as possible.

>

>All that work and you fuck us over, Linus. Now we fuck you back.

Any news? Thoughts?

>>985738

Also note: the SFConservancy's claims were refuted 5 hours after they were published. Yet no one knows this and shouts "GPLv2 is irrevocable because SFConservancy says so!". When such is not the case. But _EVERYONE_ believes the SFConservancy.

Furthermore, if you read the "clarification", it isn't even speaking of other developers, only end users (who make no modifications and do not redistribute).

I guess no-one wants to help.

>>977926

>

>We may have a problem:

>

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

Notice the weasel words "may be construed" in the "update".

Not even their lawyer is willing to commit to their defense.

Once you read the clauses that "may be construed", which they have selectively quoted from, you see that those clauses are simply explaining that a sub-licensee does not automatically lose his license just because his predecessor in interest (for lack of a better term) lost his due to the operation of the license.

IE: If Bradly Spengler blatantly violates the Vanilla Linux Kernel X.YZrc200 licensing terms for all the world to see, in a written memorandum no less, and his license grant is automagically* revoked due to the terms of the license, that does not mean that Gregory Smith, who got a copy of Vanilla Linux Kernel X.YZrc200 from Bradly Spengler on a compact disc five days earlier, also loses his license: infact Gregory Smith gets to keep using and modifying etc Vanilla Linux Kernel X.YZrc200, only Bradly Spengler has lost permission.

*(Note: This automagistry does not quite work so quickly in germany, another reason for GPLv3)

>>977940

Ping

>>978116

>>974308

How are things going?

>>974349

Could you comment further.

It seems everyone has chosen to believe SFConservancy's hurried response.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#187093805

> Anonymous ID:sqkjzTNz Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:23:36 No.187093805 ViewReport

> Working with a group of 5 other devs thus far to rescind our code. Some of whom have been major contributers.

>Was hard to find a decent attorney with tech based experience due to the fact that a lot of heavy weighters are going to be extremely upset. Drafting legal docs to make it as impactful as possible.

>

>All that work and you fuck us over, Linus. Now we fuck you back.

????

ESR says pull it:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8161

>esr on 2018-10-11 at 21:54:46 said:

>

> >Is the freedom to be a dick online and still contribute to the kernel really worth it?

>

>Preventing totalitarians from getting the control they crave is always worth it.

>>985863

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8161

Full context:

zz on 2018-10-11 at 16:58:05 said:

Any news on this?:

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#187093805

> Anonymous ID:sqkjzTNz Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:23:36 No.187093805 ViewReport

> Working with a group of 5 other devs thus far to rescind our code. Some of whom have been major contributers.

>Was hard to find a decent attorney with tech based experience due to the fact that a lot of heavy weighters are going to be extremely upset. Drafting legal docs to make it as impactful as possible.

>

>All that work and you fuck us over, Linus. Now we fuck you back.

---—

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#q187094037

> leiqdbSauceNAO Screen Shot 2018-09-26 at 8.24.1 (…).png, 136KiB, 458×928

> Anonymous ID:zDdj02sY Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:25:31 No.187094037 Report

> Quoted By: >>187094386 >>187094624 >>187099544

>Stop fucking commenting as if this would ground the internet to a halt overnight. Revoking code means it can’t be in the next version, it doesn’t invalidate prior versions. 80% of the code submitted to the Linux project is from Redhat or some other major company like Intel or AMD. That other 20% is minor shit except for the few people who have been around forever. This fucking threat is hollow because no company is going to pull their code because of a few trannies. This CoC thing will be ignored because big money rests on the project being successful. The moment this fucking dipshit starts becoming a liability the big money will smite him full force.

---—

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/187078170/#q187094386

> Anonymous ID:sqkjzTNz Thu 27 Sep 2018 00:28:48 No.187094386 Report

> Quoted By: >>187104619

> >>187094037

> >except for the few people who have been around forever.

>

>Ding ding.

---—————

https://lulz.com/linux-devs-threaten-killswitch-coc-controversy-1252/

>thejynxed

>

>My company is already considering the full withdrawal of all contributed code to the kernel project and related embedded kernel projects. You literally can\u2019t run embedded Linux on industrial controls or handheld scanners without this code.

>September 22, 2018 Reply

Reply ↓

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

Jeff Read on 2018-10-11 at 19:29:59 said:

If there’s even a hint that this sort of thing is even feasible, watch Oracle pull another fast one and make OpenJDK go bye-bye. Then, everyone will have to pay for Java licenses.

And that’ll be just the beginning. This is a can of worms you do not want to open up.

Is the freedom to be a dick online and still contribute to the kernel really worth it?

Reply ↓

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

esr on 2018-10-11 at 21:54:46 said:

>Is the freedom to be a dick online and still contribute to the kernel really worth it?

Preventing totalitarians from getting the control they crave is always worth it.

Reply ↓

Jeff Read on 2018-10-12 at 00:49:19 said:

One of the linchpins of open source is that once released under an open-source license, that code remains open in perpetuity. I don’t think even you would want to cede that ground for an opportunity to stick it to some of your hated enemies --- because you won’t be getting that back, and once companies like Oracle sniff out that there’s money to be made by rescinding and charging license fees for code that they once offered in good will to the community, they won’t hesitate to do so for a second.

To quote one of fiction’s greatest military space commanders --- it’s a trap!

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

>>985866

>One of the linchpins of open source is that once released under an open-source license, that code remains open in perpetuity.

This is never stated in the "classic" opensource licenses.

(Which are all very short documents, not drafted by lawyers)

(BSD, GPLv1, GPLv2, MIT, etc)

It is just assumed to be by various people.

Which is a mistake under US law since the property-law defaults are actually the opposite.

It IS stated in the 2nd and 3rd generation of opensource licenses that were actually drafted by corporate council (of which the GPLv3 is one).

>and once companies like Oracle sniff out that there\u2019s money to be made by rescinding and

They already know. This is why they usually insist on proper licenses without missing or omitted terms, as-well as copyright assignments.

The Opensource and Free Software movements might need to disassociate with the USA however. I remember a time when the Opensource and Free Software movements had little love for the USA and openly flouted US encryption restrictions. At that time the movements were inhabited by the people, and not controlled by establishment interlopers.

ESR says pull it:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8161

>esr on 2018-10-11 at 21:54:46 said:

>

> >Is the freedom to be a dick online and still contribute to the kernel really worth it?

>

>Preventing totalitarians from getting the control they crave is always worth it.