[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ameta / choroy / d / dempart / general / jenny / miku / monarchy ]

/tech/ - Technology

Winner of the 75nd Attention-Hungry Games
/caco/ - Azarath Metrion Zinthos

March 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Email
Comment *
Verification *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.


 No.1027681

Since: http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/1018729.html

was bumplocked by the shadow admins (aka the programming code) (Since I'm winning on all counts: because I am correct on the law).

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/4/1065

Quick recap, as told by anon:

Anonymous 02/05/19 (Tue) 14:47:16 No.1027517

Summary of this episode as this thread reaches the bump limit:

>an impersonator ("John Doe") created GitHub, then GitLab and BitBucket repos for trolling purposes

>MikeeUSA hit all three with DMCA (with the GitLab and BitBucket repos successfully taken down)

>meanwhile the impersonator opened the GitHub repo to pull requests; Mikee's butthurt as usual

>that GitHub repo's last commit was made last Thursday

And:

>>1027530

>Gitlab and Bitbucket repos are down due to DMCA notices

>There is still no evidence he hit github with a DMCA

<100 IQ

And

"GPL is Revocable" (== incel terrorism -reddit)

 No.1027684

Some woman contributed this opinion:

>post replyI have rescinded the GPL from a number of people (regarding

>GPC-Slots 2)

>from RheaAyase via /r/opensource sent 8 hours ago

>Hey /u/mikeeusa, I encourage you to google where I work and live and >

>meet me in person for a passionate discussion about how much you've

>contributed to the open source, and how much have I (or just about any

>other woman in open source.)

https://www.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/andmlq/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/

>RheaAyase

>Red Hat Employee

>Moderator of r/redhat, speaking officially

>

>Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, it has been removed for the following reason(s):

>

> Containing hate speech.

>

>If you feel this action was taken in error, would like better clarification, or need further assistance, please message the mods.

>jwaterworth

>Red Hat Employee

>Moderator of r/redhat, speaking officially

>· Stickied comment

>locking this thread. we dont need users spewing hate into the community. i dont care if youre a nazi or a women hater and contribute code, but keep your dumb ideas to yourself.

Oh and my long held, seldom used, mikeeusa account was banned for some reason. I hope one day the CC gains power again and burns all these women's rights believers alive, like in the old days.


 No.1027685

User was banned for this post.


 No.1027687

>clocks212

>This guy sounds like a complete piece of shit.


 No.1027688

https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/anf04l/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/

RheaAyase

On one hand I feel like talking about this (as a woman in tech/opensource/redhat) but on the other hand I shouldn't (as a moderator)

I'll just go with this note: One hell of a dare to post such a thing on /r/Fedora and/or /r/RedHat don't you think? I don't think that this person will ever get a job in any Open Source company anymore. :]


 No.1027702

>>1027681

Now you should calm down your schizophrenia. No wonder you weren't taken seriously and you still aren't you phrase things with complete madness. The salt generated on leddit is nice tho. But m8 the way you handled and phrased your goal has created more hatred towards the GPL than anyone else since the beginning of the GPL.

Plus you've also associated GPL users with your own insanity. Don't get me wrong I hate all the social justice retards and it's not insane to be against it but you've handled this in a manner that completely negates what you did.


 No.1027713

>>1027702

>Plus you've also associated GPL users with your own insanity

RMS already does that by literally eating his feet.


 No.1027717

What's the largest project this has happened to. The main one I can think of is Bukkit (the Minecraft server that allows plugins). One of the developers got mad that Mojang hired some other Bukkit devs and essentially sold the project to Mojang so he DMCA'd everything hosting the source code to it. Since he was a large contributor it essentially killed the project.


 No.1027718

>>1027717

also this happened back in 2014.


 No.1027722

>>1027684

>women hater

using proper English grammar, this unambiguously refers to someone who hates women.

using feminist grammar, this refers to a hater who is a woman.


 No.1027724

>>1027722

Are you sure about the second part?


 No.1027736

> https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/anlj03/lkml_i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of/

> from TrogdorKhan97 via /r/linux_gaming sent 50 minutes ago

> I don't know who you are or what this is about, but after reading the mini-manifesto you've linked to, I wish you every kind of unpleasantness. I only regret that I am likely to never hear of this again, as you seem to be exactly the kind of person who deserves to be made an example of as publicly as possible.


 No.1027738

>>1027702

> >>1027681

>Now you should calm down your schizophrenia.

>No wonder you weren't taken seriously and you still aren't you phrase things with complete madness. The salt generated on leddit is nice tho.

Feel free to re-present the issues using more... sane... language.

>But m8 the way you handled and phrased your goal has created more hatred towards the GPL than anyone else since the beginning of the GPL.

Is this bad? Remeber the GPL proponents were always touting that you could use the GPL to "free the source" of derivative works /WHILE/ also claiming that the GPL /WAS NOT A K/ (they were correct on the second part: it isn't a contract alone).

Specific performance is /ONLY/ available in contracts (and even then it's hard to get). They were blatantly talking out of both sides of their mouths for decades.

>Plus you've also associated GPL users with your own insanity. Don't get me wrong I hate all the social justice retards and it's not insane to be against it

Why is this bad?

> but you've handled this in a manner that completely negates what you did.


 No.1027739

>>1027713

>RMS already does that by literally eating his feet.

Why did he do this? That was disgusting. I (all of us) saw the video. Why doesn't he into shoes?


 No.1027743

.


 No.1027753

Bump.


 No.1027754

>>1027739

It's no more disgusting than admitting to enjoying anime.


 No.1027766

>>1027754

Gnome is trash.


 No.1027782

>>1027766

Agreed


 No.1027788


 No.1027789

When will you just kill yourself MikeeUSA? You're worthless garbage. No one gives a shit about your stupid slot game, no matter how many fucking threads you make. No one will ever care about any code you write. It's worthless, useless, forgettable garbage that doesn't solve anyone's problems. You're an autistic narcissist pedophile, probably a rapist too. Hopefully you get a big dick shoved up your ass in jail after you get caught fucking more children. You'll die alone, with cheeto crumbs all over your 300 lb stank ass belly, shit in your adult diaper, loli posters on every wall, with your micropenis all shriveled up from furiously masturbating to child porn 10 hours a day.


 No.1027792

Imagine bragging about your DMCA abuse.

Imagine thinking the post limit exists specifically to target you.

Imagine samefagging so desperately.


 No.1027793

>>1027789

Daily reminder that trolls feed off this kind of attention. If you're going to fume at a troll, I suggest working with established copypasta because your effort is greatly diminished when you do it.


 No.1027802

>>1027684

You are a fucking imbecile.


 No.1027806

Bump to trigger autism.


 No.1027808

inb4 he gets IP-benned from reddit


 No.1027810

>>1027808

He can post on Leddit through TOR though


 No.1027820

>>1027792

>>1027789

OY FUCKING VEY

SHUT IT DOWN


 No.1027821


 No.1027822

>>1027821

>>1027820

Get new material, mikee


 No.1027825

>>1027822

>says the butthurt jew in full damage control mode


 No.1027842

Someone forked my repo <3

https://github.com/MikeeUSA2/GPC-Slots-2/

My version of GPC-Slots 2 is more popular than Mikee's. ebin :D


 No.1027843

>>1027842

Are you samefagging or another impersonator?


 No.1027844

>>1027843

>impersonator

Nobody is nor wants to impersonate MikeeUSA.


 No.1027845

>>1027842

>that readme

I love this


 No.1027850


 No.1027851

File: b31b430c8e0af1a⋯.png (3.2 KB, 230x154, 115:77, Screenshot_2019-02-06 Auth….png)


 No.1027855

>>1027850

>Mikee is so buttmad he accidentally quotes his own post (1027825)

lolololloolololloololoolloolllooloololol


 No.1027856

>>1027851

thanks for posting irrefutable evidence

i am now convinced you are not a jew trying to push degeneracy by supporting feminists and claiming GPL cannot be revoked in response to linux's code of conduct which you no doubt support.


 No.1027857

>>1027850

>implying I'm samefagging

Please livestream your self-flagellation.


 No.1027877

>>1027851

>people are still posting these

You can just edit that shit with inspect element to say anything you want.


 No.1027878


 No.1027895

>>1027713

Yes. But we already know that RMS is autistic and we know that he isn't insane per default.


 No.1027915

https://old.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/am6xhj/host_agrees_to_dmca_takedown_of_gpld_work_after/

>from Michaelmrose via /r/opensource sent 3 days ago

>You are basically an incel terrorist waiting to happen and we really need to lock you up before you go shoot up something. I think its time the lawful authorities were involved. Can anyone provide which jurisdiction he is in so we can inform the proper folks with the rubber room?


 No.1027918

>>1027789

>When will you just kill yourself MikeeUSA? You're worthless garbage. No one gives a shit about your stupid slot game,

They seem to get pretty angry about "Rescind".

>no matter how many fucking threads you make. No one will ever care about any code you write. It's worthless, useless, forgettable garbage

I write to code for my purposes, not yours.

Since you ban me from having good girls I want to harm you, not solve your problems.

>that doesn't solve anyone's problems.

You think I wrote it for you?

Indeed it doesn't solve anyone's problems. Today it exists as bait to cause you problems. #RescindGPL

>You're an autistic narcissist pedophile, probably a rapist too

> Hopefully you get a big dick shoved up your ass in jail

Faggot americanism.

Hopefully the catholic church will go back to burning you people alive.

> after you get caught fucking more children. You'll die alone, with cheeto crumbs all over your 300 lb stank ass belly, shit in your adult diaper, loli posters on every wall, with your micropenis all shriveled up from furiously masturbating to child porn 10 hours a day.

More americanism.


 No.1027919


 No.1027924

still nothing on https://github.com/github/dmca by the way


 No.1027933

>>1027924

Going to lick your wounds and claim victory?

I send the requests to github something like 10 times now.

Bitbucket and gitlab complied, github did not.

2 for 3.

The GPL is revocable.

The code IS mine.

M I N E.

>>1027792

>Imagine bragging about your DMCA abuse.

First you said "HE NEVER SENT ANY!!!!"

Now you complain.

Moving the goal posts constantly.

It is no abuse: I revoked the license from "John Doe", I OWN THE FUCKING COPYRIGHT, I used the DMCA properly.


 No.1027934

You can get the text of the DMCA requests from here:

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

There are 2 different versions.

If you wish to send that text to github to see for yourself, you have my blessing to do so, acting as my agent, sending that text to get the DMCA take down through to them

--MikeeUSA--

("e" sig)


 No.1027938

Trying other contact forms on github

>Report content - DMCA TAKEDOWN YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT

Thanks for getting in touch with us!

We’ll get back to you shortly.


 No.1027940

>With your misogynistic views, of course you forgot that the laywer, the one who would have been most likely to work on the GPL itself is a woman

The license was originally written by Richard Stallman

GPLv3 was written by Richard Stallman, with legal counsel from Eben Moglen and Richard Fontana from the Software Freedom Law Center.

You didn't even bother to check.

Like all pro-women people you must claim victories for women from that which was set down by men.

Same thing with the Linux kernel and Opensource: Men did all the work, women have come to kick them out and rule the roost.

That is how western society is. It is an enemy of all men.

>from comphacker via /r/opensource sent 29 minutes ago

>And who's taking care of the legal side of it right now? Also, your code is under the GPLv2, not the GPLv3. Shouldn't you know that?

>

>And you know what, I'm find with women getting some credit. If it makes you mad, then I consider it a success.

GPLv1 and v2 are by RMS.

v3 are by RMS and eben moglen etc.

Women had nothing to do with the GPL, nor the opensource movement, until they invaded in 2009. They've done nothing since but rule the roost.

>I'm find with women getting some credit.

Because you are a faggot. You think you can give them undeserved credit and get your dick wet.

>If it makes you mad, then I consider it a success.

It does, if I were the ruler I would torture you to death as a heretic, as the Catholic Church used to do with people who believe and professed the things you do.

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/anseco/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/


 No.1027947

>>1027940

I appreciate what you're doing with the salt you make from being right but could you not link to Reddit.


 No.1027949

post replyI have rescinded the GPL from a number of people (regarding GPC-Slots 2)

>from TheNerdyAnarchist via /r/linuxmint sent an hour ago

>How emasculated must you feel after getting owned by women and feminists so hard that you decided a month-long temper tantrum on reddit was the only "recourse"...

>

>It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

>mikeeusa0

>All western males are owned by women.


 No.1027950

>>1027947

Ok, I'll post the comments without links


 No.1027951

>>1027947

>I appreciate what you're doing with the salt you make from being right

One of the opensource lawyers has said to me: "you are exactly the type of person character and fitness was created to weed out."


 No.1027952

>>1027924

>still nothing on https://github.com/github/dmca by the way

I do wish they'd post it, but if you read their "reason" for creating the DMCA repo it is clear that it is to simply mock the senders.

When there is an issue of law that threatens them, it is not something they can easily mock without lawyers and commentators from the other side citing references that show that the reasoning is sound. They do not want a media story either, so they do not post the takedown.


 No.1027953

>>1027952

stop lying faggot, the repo is there for transparency, you're not important enough for Microsoft to mock you


 No.1027955

comphacker : you had a gratis license, not a paid license. There is no attached interest. I revoked your license, you defied me, and are now committing copyright infringement.

An "interest" generally means PAYMENT (not that you're 'interested' in the work... fucking moron). You PAY for a license, you can then hold the other party to the terms, You do NOT pay for a license, you have nothing to hold the other party to.

YOU DO NOT OWN THE FUCKING CODE.

IT IS MY MOTHER FUCKING PROPERTY. NOT YOURS YOU ENTITLED PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT.

If I EVER find out who you are I am going to FUCKING BEAT YOU TO DEATH...

And then inform you that your license is rescinded.


 No.1027956

>>1027953

I have sent it again and again and again and again.

Time and place. I want to murder you.


 No.1027958

>>1027956

>I want to murder you.

Reported you to the FBI <3


 No.1027959

>>1027956

>I want to murder you.

Totally a lawyer and not an unhinged dindu


 No.1027960

Sent both requests again, this time using:

h2fe6u+ee4spupqs1oo8@sharklasers.com

to: copyright@github.com


 No.1027961

>>1027955

>If I EVER find out who you are I am going to FUCKING BEAT YOU TO DEATH...

lol, Mikee's even more unhinged than usual. What an impotent faggot.


 No.1027962

>>1027958

Time and place shithead.

I will bring a weapon and will kill you.

Time and place.


 No.1027963

>>1027960

>using throwaway mails for DMCA requests

How do you even function in real life


 No.1027964

>>1027958

Tell me where you are so I may cut off you hands, nail you to a wheel, break you on that wheel, and then burn you alive.

Please.


 No.1027965

>>1027963

Sorry, all other emails require your life's story.

Wasn't so in the past, but now we're firmly under the control of the women's prerogative. And they don't want anon males around.


 No.1027966

>>1027958

Aren't you going to tell me where you are so I can travel there and torture you until you are dead?

Why not?


 No.1027967

>>1027962

>>1027964

>>1027966

Cafe an der Uni

Ludwigstr. 24, 80539 Münchan, Deutschland

Tell me when you'll be there.


 No.1027968

>>1027967

>Münchan

München


 No.1027969

>>1027967

On a learjet 7 as we speak.

Be ready for an inquisition style torture, a spanish style disembowelment (using the spiked drum), and then an act of faith.


 No.1027970

>>1027969

I can see that you haven't leaved your basement, lardass


 No.1027971

>With your misogynistic views, of course you forgot that the laywer, the one who would have been most likely to work on the GPL itself is a woman. You're backing a woman's views. How scary. Why don't you contact her if you're having issues with the GPL? I'm sure she'd be happy to help as long as you don't realize just how much a piece of filth you are, a stain on the earth that you've become.

This guy's just wrong. Why did he say that.

I guess women wrote linux too..


 No.1027972

>>1027970

It's nice looking down on the clouds. You will be broken on a 15th century breaking wheel. It's on loan from the vatican. Your death will be slow.

#Rescind


 No.1027986

Lots of birds up here, the pilot must be flying low...


 No.1027987

>>1027986

Odd that you'll pretend you're a lawyer, but won't pretend you're a pilot, too.


 No.1028024

>>1027970

>leaved

Left, not leaved. "To leave" is an irregular verb in English.


 No.1028051

>>1027987

Odd that a jew on 8ch thinks it's opinion matters.


 No.1028098

>>1027792

Imagine getting this mad at some random dude on the internet. lmao


 No.1028120

>>1028098

People seem to get very mad at "GPL is revocable" for some reason.


 No.1028124

>>1028120

I've found that they get mad once someone has revoked it. Especially normalfags who start crying because they can no longer get their favorite software since it's been DMCA'd.


 No.1028132

>>1027955

woop xir ass mikee


 No.1028137

>>1028124

Your slots game is nobody's favorite software.


 No.1028141

>>1028124

>I've found that they get mad once someone has revoked it. Especially normalfags who start crying because they can no longer get their favorite software since it's been DMCA'd.

While they sit next to a 6tb drive full of music, movies, and software they don't have a license for either.

>is nobody's favorite software.

Revoking the license is apparently "incel terrorism", someone seems concerned atleast. Free Software lawyers were saying how they wanted to disbar aswell "people like X are exactly who Character and Fitness was ment to weed out".


 No.1028148

>>1028141

>While they sit next to a 6tb drive full of music, movies, and software they don't have a license for either.

Why would a normalfag keep local backups of media they like when they can stream it anytime they want from Spotify (tm) or Netflix (tm) or Hulu (tm) or Itunes (tm)?


 No.1028168


 No.1028179

To MikeeUSA: please seek help. You've been sperging out for 10 years straight now: you're not well and you are making the internet a worse place for everyone, including people that share some of your anti-feminist goals.

If you keep on this path you'll end up jumping in front of a train like Terry, only difference is that people liked Terry, nobody likes you.


 No.1028180

>>1028179

I rescind your license.

>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.


 No.1028181

>>1028179

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/am6xhj/host_agrees_to_dmca_takedown_of_gpld_work_after/

> Jacobsen v. Katzer.

Appelate court ruled that the Artistic License was a Copyright License, _Overuled_ the lowercourt's opinion that the only damages available for the AL were contract damages. Now licensor can get copyright damages instead.

How does this hurt me, DIPSHIT? Oh, are you relying on the non-binding DICTA earlier in the case? SHOWS WHAT A FUCKING RETARD YOU ARE.

The ruling helps me. The court decided that the AL was a copyright license, overruling the "we have a contract here" ruling of the lower court. If the court found it was a contract then only contract damages would be awarded, as is their practice.

Artifex case involves a preliminary offer to do business where the company allows two means of acceptance of the offer: Pay for the commercial license, accept the GPL.

Not the GPL standing alone.

Both of these cases are cases where a licensee violates the license, and the court allows the licensor to recover.

Completely unrelated to a situation where the licensor revokes a completely gratis license and you FUCKING pieces of shit feel that you can punish the licensor for doing so.

> that taught you that licenses require consideration to be irrevocable.

It's very basic law of licenses, you fucking moron.

Your only other option is to beg the court under equity not to enforce the owner's legal right. Which, is the SFLC's game plan.

The GPL itself is NOT a contract.

>If you really are an attorney, I want to know who did your character and fitness interview. Man, did that guy fuck up.

Tell me how so, dipshit. It's you who seem to be unaware that licenses are revocable, that obeying a pre-existing legal duty is insufficient for consideration, that a non-exclusive license is NEVER a transfer of rights.

You just assume that because commercial copyright licenses are irrevocable outside of their terms that gratis ones are too. Same mistake PJ the paralegal made.

>But no, you need to keep trying to convince attorneys that licenses are irrevocable

Nope, informing the lay people that gratis licenses /are/ revocable.

>and little girls are capable of consent

YHWH doesn't require consent. See Devarim chapter 22, verse 28 (key words: taphas, na'ar (hebrew), padia (greek Septuagint), puella (latin vulgate)). I know it conflicts with your western religion, but hopefully the muslims will completely destroy and dismantle it so there is no record left of your western religion ever existing on this earth.

>and adult women can't be allowed near software.

The adult women infiltrate gratis projects, then rule over the men who actually built the project from the ground up. They are entryists and ENEMIES. They do this to every single hobby men build into a science or engineering field. I can't really say all women though, WHITE women.

>I've got friends at the SFC

Does that include that baby-faced faggot B.Kuhn who isn't even a lawyer and then suddenly learned one year that, if he was going to run a legal consulting firm, he'd better hire a lawyer instead of playing one... and then learned that a lawyer cannot be below lay persons in such a firm, so he made the woman the head of the place and pretends it was all for women's empowerment, thinking that no one knows the bar rules and can see through his bullshit? Is that the Software Freedom Conservancy's who's "clarification" I debunked within 5 hours of them posting? The one that ignores section 0 of the GPLv2 which defines "you" as the licensees (not the grantor) and falsely attempts to convince readers that section 4 is a "no revocation" clause when it is simply a clarification that if an upstream licensee loses his license through automatic rescission, the downstream licensees do not automatically suffer the same fate. That SFC? The one that "advises" its clients to "wait it out" so they can lose their standing via the statute of limitations running (Great advice B.Kuhn).

Yea, a bunch of fucking retards who basically commit legal malpractice against their clients as a "career". But you get what you pay for (and that also goes for licenses)


 No.1028281

>>1028179

(((To MikeeUSA: please seek help. You've been sperging out for 10 years straight now: you're not well and you are making the internet a worse place for everyone, including people that share some of your anti-feminist goals.)))

(((If you keep on this path you'll end up jumping in front of a train like Terry, only difference is that people liked Terry, nobody likes you.)))


 No.1028334

>>1028281

this. Mikee where da patreon at


 No.1028346

>>1028179

>You've been sperging out for 10 years straight now

Actually, 20 years.

10 years ago is when the women actually managed to gain leadership over OSS, prior to that they weren't given the time of day: the men who actually wrote the code ruled.


 No.1028347

>>1028179

>and you are making the internet a worse place for everyone,

good

> including people that share some of your anti-feminist goals.

If they're not pro-loli, they're not anti-feminist.


 No.1028348

>>1028334

No where, does it for free.


 No.1028352


 No.1028387

.


 No.1028402

Hi MikeeUSA, I'm curious how your childhood was and what major events happened in your life. I want to know how you ended up being you. I'm not judging, I'm genuinely interested. I think you are a fascinating human.


 No.1028435

>>1028402

>Hi MikeeUSA, I'm curious how your childhood was

Private schools.

>and what major events happened in your life.

None

>I want to know how you ended up being you.

Realizing that there was no way to win, so there was no reason to strive. Yet having the desire to strive none the less.

>I'm not judging, I'm genuinely interested. I think you are a fascinating human.


 No.1028448

>>1027738

I agree with him. You sound insane. That's not a bad thing by itself, but it's a bad thing if you want to be taken seriously. I agree with the sentiment against SJWs and enforcing what you enforced, though.


 No.1028497

>>1028448

Would you re-transmit the message in a non-insane sounding way.

Speaking nicely does not work.

Explaining the law calmly does not work either.

The techies only listen when there is an appearance of emotion behind the words; in which case they also dismiss the words as mad. But they atleast read them.

Who do you think sent the original "rescind" emails to the LKML 3 months ago? Nice and calm. The techies did nothing and just dismissed the information as "wrong". Because, you know, they're lawyers...


 No.1028501

>>1026842

>This sort of abusive language makes people think you are a tool. While we'd love to believe that people pay attention to the crux of the argument and not the language it is wrapped in, a lot of today's programmers and the general open source community are a superficial and dismissive lot who will not give two shits about what you say if they can berate you for how you say it. This means that despite your valid points, it will fail to persuade people who will just convince themselves that you are making shit up or not understanding the situation because they prejudged you as a dumbass and will not exert the mental effort to verify whether your claims are actually valid or not. Basically you run up against plain disbelief from lazy tools who dismissed what you said simply because they didn't like the way you said it.


 No.1028511

>MikeeUSA

How is this nigga still going lmao kill youself


 No.1028523

>>1028497

It's because they don't take advice from LARPers. If they want advice, they take it from lawyers where they know the person's name and is accountable to the bar. A LARPer is not accountable to anybody.


 No.1028530

>>1028523

They take advice from the SF Conservancy and the FSF, if anyone, which is like taking advice from opposing counsel. Usually they don't even do that and just take "advice" from each other.


 No.1028535

>>1028530

There are names attached to the SF conservancy and the FSF. If they are wrong, lawyers with names will prove them wrong in court. The name of MikeeUSA is not the name of any lawyer registered to any bar so therefore, the legal analysis of MikeeUSA is meaningless to anybody. The name of MikeeUSA is just LARPing.


 No.1028549

>>1028535

>There are names attached to the SF conservancy and the FSF. If they are wrong, lawyers with names will prove them wrong in court. The name of MikeeUSA is not the name of any lawyer registered to any bar so therefore, the legal analysis of MikeeUSA is meaningless to anybody. The name of MikeeUSA is just LARPing.

The federalist papers were published anonymously


 No.1028623

>>1027789

Don't listen to this leftypol communist cuckface. We love you very much Mikee! 可愛い! (^ム^)


 No.1028643

>>1028549

The federalist papers are a treatise that considers the philosophy of governance. There is no analysis of specific laws in order to punish political opponents. Only philosophy about what it means to choose a balanced government.

The claim that the GPL without revokable interest is revokable is a specific analysis about specific laws.


 No.1028700

Mikee what code is it that is making these liberals so mad?


 No.1028709

>>1028700

Not Mikee, feminists poked the bear by forking one of his games adding a switch statement instead of some ifs iirc and then saying that his code is shit. It was a literal group called "geek feminists" or some shit, asking for it really. Cuck devs are following the proceedings because of what it says for the CoC'ing of Linux, that is, a man can take his code with him if he's kicked out of donating his code for free because SJWs found out he said something doubleplusbad on twitter.


 No.1028710

>>1028709

>mikee switching up his writing style

nearly fooled me there, mikee


 No.1028719

File: 49cb916e927c8c0⋯.jpg (45.59 KB, 480x465, 32:31, ease off.jpg)

>>1028710

Just stop, while trolling Mikee and anyone else in the thread is fun, there's actual important shit going on.


 No.1028720

>>1028719

>there's actual important shit going on.

On /tech/? Top LARP!


 No.1028722

>>1028720

I'll talk to you if you want you lonely faggot. Have you read anything about transactional analysis?


 No.1028725

>>1028722

>LARPing


 No.1028730

>>1028700

>Mikee what code is it that is making these liberals so mad?

A simple text casino game who's origins begin 15 years ago.

https://www.pastefs.com/pid/100415

http://p.ip.fi/Ta9b

>#!/usr/bin/perl

>#GPCSLOTS 2

># By The Entity Known As MikeeUSA

...

>package PrintWrapper;

>use IO::Handle;

>use strict;

>use warnings;

...

>#GPCSLOTS 2 by MikeeUSA

>#https://cat2.dynu.ca or https://caethaver2.dynu.ca

>#Feminism Delenda Est.


 No.1028731

>>1028725

Here's your (you).

I would have actually talked to you, transnational analysis isn't even programming anyway, it's why you do what you do


 No.1028734

>>1028731

>continuing to LARP

just stop


 No.1028736

>>1028730

>#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.

thx


 No.1028741

>>1028700

>>1028709

Can one man be this bad at samefagging?


 No.1028771

I notice that our "John Doe" on the 4chan /g/ thread proclaimed that a Fraudulent DMCA claim is illegal.

There is no fraud here: I am the owner of the copyright.

I sent the DMCA takedowns.

It's a right I have as the copyright holder.

Just as it is a right to, before that, rescind gratuitous licenses at my pleasure.


 No.1028774

>>1028736

The license has been (and was) rescinded from the "John Doe" here now and forever. He has notice of this (for about a week now). He cannot rely on the license terms distributed to the non-identifable public. He is an identifiable singular entity and he was told by the Copyright owner that he is not being granted any license from the copyright holder, and any license he did have has been revoked.

Go and FUCK yourself. Or be sued, your choice shithead.


 No.1028777

>>1028774

>he

You are speaking to him. Sue me :^)


 No.1028790

>>1028774

sue me, kike


 No.1028831

>>1028777

Once I find out who you are, I shall.


 No.1028832

Remember: the linux kernel contributors could do the same thing.

But they fear the CoC


 No.1028833

"oh oh if I rescind I won't get to work in mandatory sex change industry in faggot and woman country! I better not leverage my copyrights, oh oh dear me!"

--Wage slave faggot "men"


 No.1028835

I remember when nobody in opensource had "jobs", and everyone was anonymous or nearly so.

Yet all these faggots are afraid to leverage their copyrights to force or punish others (which Companies do all the time) and bend them to their will... because they are afraid they will be "unemployable"

Faggot wagies.


 No.1028933

.


 No.1029016

>>1028933

This is why these threads should be deleted


 No.1029085

.


 No.1029086

>>1029016

Why do you hate morse code?


 No.1029087

>>1029016

>This is why these threads should be deleted

You don't have any counters to these threads, the law within is correct: you can revoke a gratis license (You can revoke the GPL).

So you complain about it existing.


 No.1029100

this is the one... https://n3t.host/mumble.html


 No.1029126

>>1029100

The one what?


 No.1029235


 No.1029284

Go choke on gas, pedokike


 No.1029307

>>1029284

Explain your rage.


 No.1029308

>>1029284

YHWH explicitly allows men to have young girls as brides.

Devarim chapter 22, verse 28.

na'ar (child - hebrew)

padia (child - greek)

puella (young girl - latin)

Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Vulgate.

This is the law on raping (taphas - to take, as to take a city) a female child.

The man pays the father 50 silver and keeps the girl.

YHWH is a superior God to your god: the white woman


 No.1029310

(naturally the girl must not have been given away/promised to another yet)


 No.1029315

>>1029087

The counter is that you are a LARPer with bad legal advice. The law is correct and your advice is not.


 No.1029336

>>1029308

This is why your people were gassed


 No.1029345

>>1029315

Explain how the "advice" is "bad".

You have not been able to do so.

You just keep saying "NU UH!"

Licenses are revocable absent an attached interest (ex: $$).

How much did you pay the licensor for your copy of the GPL'd software?

Nothing? You have no attached interest.

That is the law.

Refute it.

Go on, you have failed to do so for over a month now.

"NUUH U WRONG" is not acceptable.

>>1029336

Supposed white man want's to kill anyone who likes cute girls.

Checks out. White men (aka: americans) worship women.

You want a queen.


 No.1029346

>>1029315

2 successful DMCA takedowns faggot.


 No.1029347

>>1029336

>This is why your people were gassed

White men really are scum.

You /recoil/ from cute nice good things.


 No.1029355

>>1029346

protip: the burden of issuing a DMCA takedown is trivial while the burden of defending a DMCA takedown is much higher

Have that legal analysis for free on the house.


 No.1029368

>>1029355

Depends entirely on the platform, a site could come along and place the onus of proof entirely on the one making the claim and then the shoe would be on the other foot.


 No.1029450

>>1029368

>and then the shoe would be on the other foot.

No, then the site would be turbosued out of existence.

Seriously, do you even know what a DMCA is?


 No.1029500

https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/4/1065

Some decisions I have made regarding my GPC-Slots 2 game:

I had chosen, as was my want, to rescind the license I extended from a

few choice individuals. I can do this because GPC-Slots 2 is my

copyrighted work. I built it. I never transferred the copyright over to

anyone.

The individuals are:

"JohnDoe" from 8chan (he knows who he is)

comphacker from here, reddit (if he violates, I'll know who he is after

the subpoenas during discovery)

Leigh Honeywell

Alex "Skud" Bayley

the "Geek feminist" collective (I believe they are identifiable, and a

small group, so no harm using this closed-class identification)

I will continue to rescind the license from anyone who adds a "Code of

Conduct" anywhere near my code (to "fight sexism".). I wholeheartedly

/support/ sexism, as-long as it is not against men. Since men are now

being assaulted as thanks for their ceaseless decades-long work on

opensource by people who did not put in the time, men should /support

sexism/ by revoking license to their gratis licensed copyrighted code

from any project that adds a "Code of Conduct".

--MikeeUSA--

(electronic signature)

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

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

Some notes:

A license without an attached interest is revocable in the US (other

countries have different laws, which is why many OSS repos kept out of

the US in the past, it is also why the FSF is both a 501(c)(3) charity

and also requires copyright assignment to them for any contribution they

accept (otherwise an author who was still the copyright owner of the

code could rescind the license to the code)).

Opensource friends like to bring up the recent district court decision

in california to try to argue the the GPL is a contract. (It's also

interesting that they started adding CoC's right after said decision, to

push out the men who created OpenSource) They are wrong. Acquiescing to

a preexisting duty is insufficient for consideration. They like to quote

this part:

> "Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint,provides that

> the

Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a

commercial

license" (Artifex v. Hancom, Case No.16-cv-06982-JSC, page 4 line 17)

This is false on its face.

The GNU GPL contains no such language.

The /business agreement writing/ that Artifex wrote up and posted on its

webpage includes such language. The court here is conflating "The GNU

GPL" with the writing Artifex published on it's webpage. It is an error

on the courts case. A typo by whomever who drafted the decision perhaps

(conflating Artifex's contract language with the GPL itself).

The court goes on to allow Artifex to recover on either

breach-of-contract grounds (for the amount a commercial license is

worth) OR to go forward with a statutory copyright infringement action.

If the GPL alone was a contract, there would simply be two different

state-law breach of contract theories to pursue (breach of the "business

offer" writing or breach of the GPL "contract", and the court would

dispose of the case that way).

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

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

David McGowan Esq. made a correct statement of the law:

> 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.

...


 No.1029501

...

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

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

Lawrence Rosen Esq. got it right the first time:

(

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


 No.1029504

>>1029355

Protip: the GPL is revocable when you did not pay for it.

It is not difficult to defend.

I explicitly rescinded the license from John Doe.

John Doe acknowledged the rescission.

John Doe "did it anyway"


 No.1029586

>>1029500

> I'll know who he is after the subpoenas during discovery

LOL


 No.1029758

still nothing on Github by the way, Mikee confirmed jew abusing DMCA against small business


 No.1029905

>>1029758

>still nothing on Github by the way, Mikee confirmed jew abusing DMCA against small business

What is your point. I sent the request to github 10 times.

You really do not believe that I sent it?


 No.1029908

>>1029758

No abuse. I am the copyright OWNER. I OWN MY CODE.

I decided to rescind the license from you.

I can do that.

You then violated my copyRIGHT.

I then DMCA took-down' your infringing account where you were violating my RIGHT.


 No.1029909

>>1029586

You doubt that discovery exists?


 No.1029916

Hello mikeeusa@gmx.com,

We're writing to let you know that the group you tried to contact (legal) may not exist, or you may not have permission to post messages to the group. A few more details on why you weren't able to post:

* You might have spelled or formatted the group name incorrectly.

* The owner of the group may have removed this group.

* You may need to join the group before receiving permission to post.

* This group may not be open to posting.

If you have questions related to this or any other Google Group, visit the Help Center at https://support.google.com/a/github.com/bin/topic.py?topic=25838.

Thanks,

github.com admins

----- Original message -----

X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IbhKZ2IRA9bzjGt7CwoVMpm6aIYVq64r9OEiWk0I60xctv0o0LQyWm+4jm+lXJY8nV+3yqQ

X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7719:: with SMTP id t25mr368215wmi.7.1549924159129;

Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:29:19 -0800 (PST)

ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1549924159; cv=none;

d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;

b=bqJvXiTi4r1B0KOMfxYsO86cJf4SwRm5neIz4iqNk/XRcZnlhRjiQEypNkKp2w52UH

jf04/nesEs8Wgjkl9mxbY2W/1NjOspYSj3O7TN5T5N9GDMBzmfraPRmLiKjGD6EIMs0C

QtLTQoHJOCamRfGiezERkA1EVN4WnnpXm21+OsvnZQpHAj0KqGxEGYfcdtkT13c9KCKp

r+VGbq4aCGLNc6O0rS5DGkoMYQPGlXkdtIUcQK83S/i9EaTR8Dv3LALBoaOyUukIV8/h

KERXkcsteWnh6u4kUoJUpPgiKx0ZWK4wenhGCo/Krqrjl0I/RrnT1RLZqNOij7Cp6uIx

PYnw==

ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816;

h=content-transfer-encoding:sensitivity:importance:date:subject:cc:to

:from:message-id:mime-version;

bh=mnmbqyFMqGQzQsz8Biv1zhnrGELs6RvdQp9tGeU4nFc=;

b=Rwe3hKwXiHqvxCP90FuL8eCNkXP7neCx7TWups4UTjuKnVzS5HBmN7WjwI8HLNoHt4

Vwl8Q6oKEqop9xKz/bJBB6eIVTNaANkm6fXTY9IqGxTRk42aok2uVH9M4mRCAWe2w2X/

ZnRqfIus4eydXOcP53zP5K6D9GguxcuGFlP0mDB2HMuyiZ6g11Gp+S0UQ9fACEdc5sUb

bxoTI0TGaE65+kkNcvhKoxlWoD8gSiH4ClcQlkFdccaEgDK+TQ+c81e+Kqc+1+LgaRX3

7C59nImDDruNoHUkZfbQfwabl3RYpl7d1PZeCiZegcQ67eKP960EFE3rxwnkfOTKY7R7

PZnQ==

ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com;

spf=pass (google.com: domain of mikeeusa@gmx.com designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mikeeusa@gmx.com

Return-Path: <mikeeusa@gmx.com>

Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net. [212.227.15.15])

by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a5si380021wmg.174.2019.02.11.14.29.19

(version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);

Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:29:19 -0800 (PST)

Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mikeeusa@gmx.com designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.15;

Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;

spf=pass (google.com: domain of mikeeusa@gmx.com designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=mikeeusa@gmx.com

Received: from [198.98.50.112] ([198.98.50.112]) by web-mail.gmx.net

(3c-app-mailcom-bs02.server.lan [172.19.170.129]) (via HTTP); Mon, 11 Feb

2019 23:29:18 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

Message-ID: <trinity-adcd0784-6dbb-428b-ab4f-593b98d1fbf5-1549924158531@3c-app-mailcom-bs02>

From: "Mikee USA" <mikeeusa@gmx.com>

To: copyright@github.com

Cc: legal@github.com, legal@microsoft.com, copyright@microsoft.com

Subject: DMCA takedown notice-GPCSlots2

Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:29:18 +0100

Importance: normal

Sensitivity: Normal

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

X-Priority: 3

X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:q+EtgIdV+SCA16B5HlwX4Zp7UQrgHSjoRAPdUDAow8soMnjw8Zb6ayeYsrPZ/UCBKgbrE

V1vXQo2CYpdKkrcWJG9A4FhkaawGX0JU3C3maL+L01QQA/TdB98ycspQZSdpgyp2VXx7NWvkuUXV

8GLN2E4/XVJPq8p9Y5QvUCfY7GvNwh2t5n1G2/fqiH1VQNDmgXS+2po2Q8N9W96ReOPoawyEedPq

q5azQj0KfvDtFCERp0xPRw0+xFXb3odenDOSLSSI8xPfjLQIcuf8fv/oq398FfgHbMvmca1divVW

Ng=

X-Spam-Flag: NO

X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:mOLP2wauTaY=:ZF/6wYHENnvNHAlTmDeBT8

6xqgp7niipiYR1QlfIMQymWzpVpzJApewaK4VwlwX3wCBhQa7V1sP1I7euNayc5h+58rLGqIv

46nphwinE89sY+kBKtwFDKbOigW6jbszaOVuONrNVKVme3DT+IPnNp2zxqTUFDyps147mNNqP

GTmZlRip/YiW6Jlfp62i8fQO+WG2vWwFcUwOSRWRDs5YF83za8fs1EF1vN5GJ9XRXJDEDIHmI

Skn1QfP7wyieyNoZ5Qs41hT1SzWNBau2x4ETCtSLmm49wo6bLgly2x3ykex2xCVglYm30D2CL

wNgP3L6santQO+sdEXBRWew7mODyUP981E59XKSMjSkAiiZLDjBKDHEAC4yH1h+JupguWE2N/

bQRY0CFJkew7d2d8AFBKgEraswzGY0Jz+VmNHQJuAYVBP3RpB+q5MAlmHL7I7WFW9YVDIWura

1SFftdQi/6Q+AJr+ENHBXMSFzoDNS2oNcz5/nUyU4PoSsK39jSFJqwuLQwGB8do2wPFpTJcA5

flfVDGp/crOoWDNOwy83esIbXcK1pIG3Emkh0tzdmMGfwsLTS5h4eZu9WI2GwZF0ZcIjBB9R4

m2vbnGJrCl2ro=

X-Gm-Spam: 0

X-Gm-Phishy: 0


 No.1029918

>>1029758

You truly infuriate me. Suggesting that I never sent the emails because github chose not to post them.

Because of their choice, that mean's I didn't send them some how...

Even though I did.

I would kill you if I met you.

By torture.


 No.1029923

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of

its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es)

failed:

copyright@microsoft.com:

SMTP error from remote server for RCPT TO command, host: microsoft-com.mail.protection.outlook.com (104.47.53.36) reason: 550 5.4.1 [copyright@microsoft.com]: Recipient address rejected: Access de

nied [BL2NAM06FT009.Eop-nam06.prod.protection.outlook.com]

legal@microsoft.com:

SMTP error from remote server for RCPT TO command, host: microsoft-com.mail.protection.outlook.com (104.47.53.36) reason: 550 5.4.1 [legal@microsoft.com]: Recipient address rejected: Access denied

[BL2NAM06FT009.Eop-nam06.prod.protection.outlook.com]

--- The header of the original message is following. ---

Received: from [198.98.50.112] ([198.98.50.112]) by web-mail.gmx.net

(3c-app-mailcom-bs02.server.lan [172.19.170.129]) (via HTTP); Mon, 11 Feb

2019 23:29:18 +0100

MIME-Version: 1.0

Message-ID: <trinity-adcd0784-6dbb-428b-ab4f-593b98d1fbf5-1549924158531@3c-app-mailcom-bs02>

From: "Mikee USA" <mikeeusa@gmx.com>

To: copyright@github.com

Cc: legal@github.com, legal@microsoft.com, copyright@microsoft.com

Subject: DMCA takedown notice-GPCSlots2

Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 23:29:18 +0100

Importance: normal

Sensitivity: Normal

Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

X-Priority: 3

X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:q+EtgIdV+SCA16B5HlwX4Zp7UQrgHSjoRAPdUDAow8soMnjw8Zb6ayeYsrPZ/UCBKgbrE

V1vXQo2CYpdKkrcWJG9A4FhkaawGX0JU3C3maL+L01QQA/TdB98ycspQZSdpgyp2VXx7NWvkuUXV

8GLN2E4/XVJPq8p9Y5QvUCfY7GvNwh2t5n1G2/fqiH1VQNDmgXS+2po2Q8N9W96ReOPoawyEedPq

q5azQj0KfvDtFCERp0xPRw0+xFXb3odenDOSLSSI8xPfjLQIcuf8fv/oq398FfgHbMvmca1divVW

Ng=

X-Spam-Flag: NO

X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:mOLP2wauTaY=:ZF/6wYHENnvNHAlTmDeBT8

6xqgp7niipiYR1QlfIMQymWzpVpzJApewaK4VwlwX3wCBhQa7V1sP1I7euNayc5h+58rLGqIv

46nphwinE89sY+kBKtwFDKbOigW6jbszaOVuONrNVKVme3DT+IPnNp2zxqTUFDyps147mNNqP

GTmZlRip/YiW6Jlfp62i8fQO+WG2vWwFcUwOSRWRDs5YF83za8fs1EF1vN5GJ9XRXJDEDIHmI

Skn1QfP7wyieyNoZ5Qs41hT1SzWNBau2x4ETCtSLmm49wo6bLgly2x3ykex2xCVglYm30D2CL

wNgP3L6santQO+sdEXBRWew7mODyUP981E59XKSMjSkAiiZLDjBKDHEAC4yH1h+JupguWE2N/

bQRY0CFJkew7d2d8AFBKgEraswzGY0Jz+VmNHQJuAYVBP3RpB+q5MAlmHL7I7WFW9YVDIWura

1SFftdQi/6Q+AJr+ENHBXMSFzoDNS2oNcz5/nUyU4PoSsK39jSFJqwuLQwGB8do2wPFpTJcA5

flfVDGp/crOoWDNOwy83esIbXcK1pIG3Emkh0tzdmMGfwsLTS5h4eZu9WI2GwZF0ZcIjBB9R4

m2vbnGJrCl2ro=


 No.1029925

Hi MikeeUSA,

Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below for reference.

This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party."

Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.

Once you've revised your notice to include the required details, please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll process it expeditiously.

Thanks,

GitHub Staff

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.

...


 No.1029928

>>1029909

>You doubt that discovery exists?

I doubt that you'll deanonymize yourself by actually filing a lawsuit. You've already said you won't identify yourself because you'd probably be disbarred. Of course, that's not really a concern because you're not actually a licensed attorney, but it demonstrated your reluctance to identify yourself. As soon as you do, everyone will be able to look you up and will know you're not a lawyer, just an insane crank still living with mummy. And when she finds out that her unemployed son is a pedophilic rapist with delusions of grandeur, she'll probably put you out on the street.

>>1029918

What makes your impotent rage even funnier is that this is all a joke to everyone but you. Nobody cares about your shitty casino game. Nobody cares about your little legal theories. You're an amusement to us. A joke. Keep dancing, jester! Keep dancing!


 No.1029929

>>1029925

>This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party."

lol, rekt

Keep dancing, jester! It's even more amusing now that you've come up against a company that's not going to process your bogus DMCA request just to get you out of their hair.


 No.1029932

You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.

I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.

I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.

The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."

My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.

I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that you may know that I am me:

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

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download

(I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)

In addition to many other places.

Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally inefficacious.

I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.

--MikeeUSA--

(Author of GPC-Slots 2)

(electronic signature)

On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:

> Hi MikeeUSA,

>

> Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below

> for reference.

>

> This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic

> signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an

> exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information

> reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the

> complaining party."

>

> Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a

> monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary

> email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.

>

> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,

> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected

> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll

> process it expeditiously.

>

> Thanks,

>

> GitHub Staff

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

>


 No.1029935

>And when she finds out that her unemployed son is a pedophilic rapist with delusions of grandeur, she'll probably put you out on the street.

Nope, my parents are well aware of my opinions and have been for the last two decades. I easily back them up with laws from YHWH, as-well as historical marriages.

>disbarred. Of course, that's not really a concern because you're not actually a licensed attorney, but it demonstrated your reluctance to identify yourself. As soon as you do, everyone will be able to look you up and will know you're not a lawyer, just an insane crank still living with mummy.

No, they would look me up and know that I am a lawyer, and that I don't bother to work too hard because I do not have to. Then they would attempt to disbar me and they would succeed because the Law profession is thoroughly CoC'd

There's no reason to be a fully employed "sane" man when you are paid nothing for your work (no cute child brides, just divorce rape).

No pay. No work.

The insane who work on their hobbies and do not contribute to the enemy civilization beyond that have the correct idea.

>>1029929

First it was "you didn't send it, rekd!

Now it was "they didn't comply, rekd!"

Goal posts constantly moved.

.The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."

Me signing with my pen name suffices for those requirements.


 No.1029936

>>1029928

>Nobody cares about your shitty casino game.

You know very well that the purpose of this exercise, from the very beginning, has been to edify the linux kernel copyright holders regarding the fact that they can rescind license to their code.

While no one may care about my "Shitty little casino game", they do very much care about the linux kernel code, and various other now-CoC'd projects.


 No.1029937


 No.1029960

>>1029935

>Goal posts constantly moved.

Nope. I never said you didn't send it. That was someone else. There's more than one person here who realizes what a ridiculous nullo you are.


 No.1029973

Real people care about their families and the people they know. They want them to be happy.

American golems care only about their law or belief system (women's rights, no marrying cute girls, etc) and will happily destroy each-other within their "families" for disobedience to their heretical american religion.

American golems also take great pleasure at abandoning their offspring immediately at the age their religion decrees: 18.

That is because, since a golem is not a person, it cares nothing for it's own: it does not own it's own self and is a slave to its master: so why would it care about "it's" people? It has no people from its point of view.


 No.1029983

>>1029936

>You know very well that the purpose of this exercise, from the very beginning, has been to edify the linux kernel copyright holders regarding the fact that they can rescind license to their code.

And two out of three source code hosts agreeing to delete your irrelevant Perl script proves nothing. Three out of three wouldn't either. Come back after you've won in Federal court and you have an opinion written by a judge that would "edify" the Linux kernel copyright holders who might want to rescind. And don't come back until then. Right now, you have nothing. You are nothing. And your pestilential, masturbatory spam here and elsewhere does nothing but alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your position. Frankly, you're an ideal ally for the anti-rescinders, because you make everything associated with you repulsive.


 No.1030008

Does anyone doubt that I sent the DMCA requests now?

You were saying for weeks that I didn't.

Before that you were saying I didn't sent them to gitlab and bitbucket.

Before that you were saying I wouldn't send them.

Before that you were saying I wouldn't revoke any licenses.

Before that you were saying I couldn't revoke licenses.

Notice that none of the hosts in the US argue against my ability to revoke.

And a signature does not need to be you "legal" name. It can be an X. It just needs to show assent. I posted the text next to the original download area you got the code from: obviously it's me.

Every fucking thing you have claimed has been shown to be false.

I really hate you people... Really. I'm getting headaches from this hate. Now I know what it's like to teach blacks in highschool.


 No.1030010

>>1029983

>And two out of three source code hosts agreeing to delete your irrelevant Perl script proves nothing. Three out of three wouldn't either. Come back after you've won in Federal court and you have an opinion written by a judge that would "edify" the Linux kernel copyright holders who might want to rescind. And don't come back until then. Right now, you have nothing. You are nothing. And your pestilential, masturbatory spam here and elsewhere does nothing but alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your position. Frankly, you're an ideal ally for the anti-rescinders, because you make everything associated with you repulsive.

Yea yea yea, every fucking thing you say is shown to be false, yet you still show yourself as "winning".

I'm going to go where I damn well please. If I were the ruler I would have you killed btw.

I don't have to win in federal court to show that a gratis non-exclusive license is revocable. Various lawyers agree with me and it's been the case for centuries.

You have to win in court to show that the rule has changed. It hasn't.

I really fucking hate you people.

The fact is that before people were under the impression that you couldn't rescind.

I am showing that you can. Yet every victory you say "YEA WELL THAT DOESN'T MATTER"

After saying "HAHAHHA U CANT WIN ON THIS PART!"

I would have you tortured to death if I were the ruler.


 No.1030011

>>1029960

Fuck you.


 No.1030014

>>1029983

>Frankly, you're an ideal ally for the anti-rescinders, because you make everything associated with you repulsive.

I started the /rescind/ "movement", moron. Everyone was anti-rescinders before me. I made people pro-rescind, including ESR. Without me there is no alternative view: only acquiescence.

>And your pestilential, masturbatory spam here and elsewhere does nothing but alienate people who might otherwise be sympathetic to your position.

This is always claimed by the enemy side, no matter what the position. "You fighting us makes other people not want to fight us"

>And two out of three source code hosts agreeing to delete your irrelevant Perl script proves nothing.

You wouldn't be arguing against me constantly if that were so.

It shows the linux kernel peeps how it's done. It shows them that it can be done. I can be done for my "WITTEL PERL SCRIPT" and it can be done for linux code they own the copyright to.

And you think my 15 year old wee wwwwiiiitttlleeee ppeerrrlll sscrripppttt is the only thing I program? Fucking moron.

I chose it because it is a good legal example. It's a nice show pony I can trot out when I need a case or controversy. It's GPLv2 (+) like the linux kernel (well lin isn't +, but if I can rescind my GPLv2+, they can rescind GPLv2). It illustrates the underlying law fairly well and straightforwardly.

There are few complications.

Thats why I chose my wooorthhhlesss litttle perrrll sscrippt and not the various other much larger projects I work on.


 No.1030022

>>1030010

>Various lawyers agree with me and it's been the case for centuries.

Lawyers are like Jews. Any 3 of them will have 10 opinions. You can find lawyers who agree with your position. I can find lawyers who disagree. If only there were some place where the lawyers could go to make their arguments and have them judged by a third party. We could even call that third party a "judge" since they're making a judgement about the lawyer's arguments. Let us know if you find anything like that.


 No.1030030

>>1030022

A non response.

From : "You're totally wrong"

To: ".... yea well other people agree with ME too!"


 No.1030031

>>1030022

Idiot who's not a lawyer.

"HURRR DURR I CAN FIND PEOPLE 2, IF I TRIED!"


 No.1030037


 No.1030047

>>1030010

>I really fucking hate you people.

I'm indifferent to you. You're not important enough to warrant strong emotion of any kind. You're not a lawyer, you'll never file a lawsuit, and your life consists of sperging out on the internet and screeching at people who actually have lives about being "wagies" because they're not F5ing 8chan threads around the clock, like you do. Pathetic.


 No.1030053

>>1030047

>I'm indifferent to you. You're not important enough to warrant strong emotion of any kind.

Yet you've been here for weeks in the same threads.

>You're not a lawyer,

I am.

> you'll never file a lawsuit, and your life consists of sperging out on the internet and screeching at people

> who actually have lives

You do not have a cute child bride. You do not have a life. You have slavery

>about being "wagies" because they're not F5ing 8chan threads around the clock, like you do. Pathetic.

Usually I just program my game :), or make assets for it etc.

https://durietangri.com/sites/default/files/legalaspectsfoss.pdf

GPL is Revocable.


 No.1030063

File: 0fb549f0422c0a2⋯.jpg (139.35 KB, 890x310, 89:31, esr.jpg)

>>1030014

>ESR

Nobody cares about ESR.


 No.1030064

>>1029918

Your willingness to spam irrelevant adresses and even different sites is telling, you're a coward and you're afraid Github will reject your claim.

>I would kill you if I met you.

You wouldn't recognize me, faggot, this is an anonymous board not facebook.

>>1029925

And here we see how much of a coward you are, purposefully sending invalid DMCAs so you can pretend github is trying to stop you on technicalities.

>>1030053

>Yet you've been here for weeks in the same threads.

Still think everyone mocking you is the same person, you dumb pedo?


 No.1030071

>>1030064

How is legal@microsoft.com and copyright@microsoft.com an irrelevant site? They own github. Don't you know that?

The DMCA request is perfectly valid. Learn about signatures. You can sign an "X" on a document and it is completely valid. The signature simply shows your assent to the document. Signing with a Pen Name is valid aswell.

Learn some law you fucking moron.

This is very basic stuff.

You just refuse to believe it.

>Still think everyone mocking you is the same person, you dumb pedo?

You all have the same opinion. "Women's rights good, kill anyone that would marry cute girls, gas Jews" etc.

So yes: you are effectively the same person: all carbon-copy-clones or golems.


 No.1030072

>>1030063

ESR created your entire movement.

RMS did not. He failed.

ESR effected the buy-in that you see today.

He convinced the world.


 No.1030073

>>1030071

>How is legal@microsoft.com and copyright@microsoft.com an irrelevant site? They own github. Don't you know that?

The "lawyer" doesn't know that Github is a subsidiary.

The "lawyer" doesn't know that a subsidiary is its own legal entity.


 No.1030079

>>1030073

Not if they're completely dominated by the parent company, moron.

Why the FUCK shouldn't I send to legal@microsoft.com? TELL ME YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.


 No.1030080

>>1030073

I'd love to fucking kill you.

You're so fucking smug, thinking you know shit, when you know fuck-all about the law.

"Oh I'll just have a subsidiary and be good"

"Haha, got them!" "Oh I'm dominating all the decisions of my subsidiary -- it's all good anyway"

Nope. Once you're dominating the sub, the courts will have the parent co liable for whatever the sub is doing as simply an "alter ego" of the parent co.

Anyway, I can send to whomever the fuck I want. Given as they'd probably have the MS legal team look over things anyway why not?

FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.


 No.1030081

I notice how you were first like "YOU NEVER SENT TO GITHUB"

Now you're like "YOU ARE COWARD!!!!"

_ALWAYS_ changing the goal posts when you're proven wrong.

ALWAYS.

I'd love to torture you to death.

Signature doesn't have to be given name, just has to indicate assent to the writing. It can be an X. Idiot.

https://durietangri.com/sites/default/files/legalaspectsfoss.pdf

GPL is Revocable.


 No.1030083

>>1030079

>TELL ME YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

>>1030080

>FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

You're violating 8chan's Code of Conduct. Please stop.


 No.1030087

>>1030081

LARPing is inevitable


 No.1030090

>>1030087

I notice how you were first like "YOU NEVER SENT TO GITHUB"

Now you're like "YOU ARE COWARD!!!!"

_ALWAYS_ changing the goal posts when you're proven wrong.

ALWAYS.

I'd love to torture you to death.

Signature doesn't have to be given name, just has to indicate assent to the writing. It can be an X. Idiot.

https://durietangri.com/sites/default/files/legalaspectsfoss.pdf

GPL is Revocable.

.The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a person with the intent to sign the record."

Me signing with my pen name suffices for those requirements.


 No.1030093

>>1030090

The reason why we cannot believe you are a lawyer is because you make extraordinary leaps to conclusions then you demand that your reality is right. Real lawyers have a much better chain of reasoning that connect a premise to a conclusion. Your LARPing is amusing though.


 No.1030095

>>1030093

I'm not going to cite cases when doing it for free.


 No.1030096

>>1030093

Explain what is wrong with my reasoning.

I explained what actually creates binding commitments, and what does not. I explained how such applies to gratis licenses. I explained how signatures work (yes, you can just "sign your mark" or an X)

These are all things one is taught in school. But you just don't know them because you never went to lawschool.

So I cited some lawyers you can read.


 No.1030121

>>1030071

>How is legal@microsoft.com and copyright@microsoft.com an irrelevant site?

>Learn about signatures. You can sign an "X" on a document and it is completely valid.

This is why everybody instantly knows you are not a lawyer.


 No.1030122

Anything that fucks over coc trannies is ok with me. They are a scourge on society who try and dominate every facet of society men created. They are vultures. It's a shame Linux will be destroyed by these mentally ill creatures but I'm sure real developers will create something Better to replacd it.


 No.1030229

>>1030122

>Anything that fucks over coc trannies is ok with me.

so, the opposite of this thread?


 No.1030305

>>1030229

If you say so. Subhumans fight dirty so do we.


 No.1030544

>>1030305

Fighting dirty is not the same as screeching impotently, LARPing, and embarassing any potential ally.


 No.1030993

>LtGerome permanently suspended from reddit

>still nothing on https://github.com/github/dmca

>nobody actually rescinded anything from Linux

What a mess


 No.1032898

>tfw mikee is gone

come back mikee :(


 No.1033214

What is this about the GPL? Why not use BSD if you want a toothless license? At least it does not put on airs.


 No.1033215


 No.1033216

>>1030121

>Learn about signatures. You can sign an "X" on a document and it is completely valid.

It is. I don't know why you don't know this.


 No.1033219

>The estoppel defense, in its simplest form, is that once code has been released under an open-source license, the community can reasonably assume that the developer can't take back the right to use his or her's code.

They're going with estopple, lol.

That is basically "We have _NO_ defense at law, so we will beg the court under equity to not enforce the author's lawful rights - and since self-help is not available, please court".

Good luck arguing an equitable defense when you didn't pay a dime to anybody, didn't have a word with the author, and are simply a freeloader.

>Some people are still unclear about what it means or what happens once they've published their program under an open-source license. In the most recent example, mikeeusa, the author of an obscure game called GPC-Slots 2, claimed he was rescinding the program's GPLv2 license from some people and "from anyone who adds a 'Code of Conduct' anywhere near my code (to 'fight sexism'.)."

I'm not unclear about it at all. I know more about the ins and outs of US copyright law than you Singh

>While this specific case doesn't really matter -- the text-based casino game hasn't been updated in over a decade and appears to have no players -- the issue of whether one can block users from using code once it's been placed under the GPLv2 bothered enough people that it's been one of the hottest stories on the Linux Kernel Mailing List (LKML) for over a week.

GPC-Slots 2 is feature complete, it doesn't need to be systemd'd


 No.1033220

>>1032898

I was getting the beginnings of a migrane from explaining the same thing over and over, also I wanted to (lern2) "kode", got some nice features done in my other game.


 No.1033239

>>1030053

Are you ever going to file a lawsuit though?


 No.1033243

>>1030014

Okay I see, your waiting for other people to file suit before you do to cover your tracks and file suit in the fray. Makes sense because while I’m rooting for you you gotta admit if this thread was tracked back to you you’d get at least a reprimand.


 No.1033256

>>1027681

I always assumed the “consideration” you were getting under the GPL was the free use of the software your contributing to.

You use the Linux kernel for a while, want it to do something extra, contribute code to it, and now you have it doing what you want, but since you didn’t pay for any of the labor that went into the rest of the code, that’s your consideration.

Your code on its own would be worthless without the probably millions of man hours that went into making the rest of the kernel.


 No.1033328

>>1033256

You are not required to contribute back at all, so it's insufficient for consideration.

>You use the Linux kernel for a while, want it to do something extra, contribute code to it, and now you have it doing what you want, but since you didn’t pay for any of the labor that went into the rest of the code, that’s your consideration.

The "other side" (licensor) did not ask for, nor require you to "contribute" anything.

Secondly, if you retain your copyrights have you really "contributed" anything? You still own your work in-toto.

What the licensor has done is changed from the default of "no derivative works permitted" to "some derivative works permitted". That's a win for you, with nothing given to the licensor. Again it's a gratuity.

(Which is re-payed, often enough, by the licensees not even following the guidelines and violating the license anyway)

In the case of the Linux Kernel, it is _VERY_ hard to get anything accepted for inclusion in the first place (this is one of the failings by Linus: he just doesn't know what he doesn't know and rejects quite good patches like grsecurity and pax)

For projects where there is a contributor licensing agreement the story is different, but that is not the case here, nor with linux, nor with many (traditionally most non-gnu) projects.

>>1033243

Yep. I think I've stuck my neck out enough trying to educate the programmers. I get threats of disbarment (and imprisonment) from the angry ones. "GPL is revocable" is not a phrase they like.


 No.1033336

>>1033219

no it isn't, ask Github :)


 No.1033618

https://linux-faq.ru/news/reliz-novoj-stabilnoj-versii-kde-plasma-vazhnoe-ispravlenie-dlya-frejmvorka-django-i-drugie-novosti.html

The developer of the text game GPC-Slots 2, known as Mikeeusa, withdrew the GPL 2 license to his game for a number of left-wing parrots. As a reason, he called the inadmissibility of placing his code in one repository with the rules of behavior of developers prohibiting sexism in relation to women. In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

New version of PyPy, adapting Ubuntu to work on ARM-laptops with preinstalled windows and other news


 No.1033619

Russians are always great. Always on the correct side.

>>1033618

Разработчик текстовой игры GPC-Slots 2, известный, как MikeeUSA, отозвал лицензию GPL 2 на свою игру для ряда левых популистов. В качестве причины он назвал неприемлемость размещения его кода в одном репозитории с правилами поведения разработчиков, запрещающими «сексизм» по отношению к женщинам. В своем сообщении он привел список правовых оснований, действительных в рамках правового поля США и позволяющих ему сделать это, а также призвал всех разработчиков последовать его примеру. Кроме того, он заявил, что продолжит отзывать лицензию и для других левых популистов. Леволиберальная помойка ZDNet уже опубликовала гневную статью по этому поводу.


 No.1033621

>>1033618

>>1033619

>They didn't link the ZDNet article


 No.1033623

>>1033621

Guess they didn't want to give the librashanka ameriganski of indian extraction his due?

> https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-code-back/

Here's a non russian source taking ZDNet's side:

https://www.html.it/18/02/2019/linux-la-gpl-non-si-puo-ignorare/

Now you'll note the argument is simply "no you can't" and "obviously" and also erroneously claims that after the SCO trial the kernel team started requiring copyright assignment.


 No.1033624

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

Thank you Russia. With love.


 No.1033626

Cracker news had a short discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19161833

They noted Sam Vehrege's proclaimation that opensource isn't the "wild west" anymore and gratis programmers must /OBEY/ now, and we keeping your code!.

You really need to rescind guys. You have to fuck them over.


 No.1033629


 No.1033630

Is it possible to withdraw access to the code originally deployed as GPL? No.

Posted on 19 February 2019 by Raoul Scarazzini in News//2 comments

I had chosen, as was my want, to rescind the license I extended from a

No choice I can do this because GPC-Slots 2 is my

Copyrighted work. I built it. I never transferred the copyright over to

Anyone.

I chose, as was my will, to terminate the license I had extended to some people. I can do this because GPC-Slots 2 is a job I hold copyright. I've never transferred this copyright to anyone.

With these words pops up one of the most followed threads of the last period in the list Linux Kernel mailing list created by that Mikeeusa, developer of the game GPC-Slots 2 (personally never seen nor heard before), within which the author says he wants to Restrict the use of your code to some specific people and in general to all those who add "code of Conduct" close to your code.

The problem is that the developer ignores a fundamental point that we have already covered in the recent past, precisely when Richard Stallman himself has confirmed that the contributions to the Linux code could not be cancelled: once GPL, for ever LPG.

Stallman's word was not enough, the good Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, author of reference for the Linux world of ZDNet, confirms it after contacting several lawyers:

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

The GPLV2 has several provisions which, when put together, can be construed as an irrevocable license from each contributor.

Though so, black on white, things seem very clear there are holes within the various definitions that can create contradictions of terms and confusion.

Of course things would be much simpler if any developer who decides to develop open source code thinks about donating something without any constraint, respecting the principle of gratuity on all fronts (not only monetary then, but also Ideological). But this is a complicated world, where the licenses to be balanced are manifold and many things change in the course of work, see for example the introduction of the code of conduct. So the steps should be carefully assessed, a bit like when you publish a photo on the internet thinking it can stay private forever: Impossible. The same applies to the code: reprocessing once you have made it free could prove very, very complicated.

What do you think?


 No.1033631

https://www.miamammausalinux.org/2019/02/e-possibile-ritirare-laccesso-a-del-codice-inizialmente-distribuito-come-gpl-no/

È possibile ritirare l’accesso a del codice inizialmente distribuito come GPL? No.

Inserito su 19 Febbraio 2019 da Raoul Scarazzini in Notizie // 2 Commenti

I had chosen, as was my want, to rescind the license I extended from a

few choice individuals. I can do this because GPC-Slots 2 is my

copyrighted work. I built it. I never transferred the copyright over to

anyone.

Ho scelto, come era mia volontà, di rescindere la licenza che avevo esteso ad alcune persone. Posso farlo perché GPC-Slots 2 è un lavoro del quale detengo copyright. Non ho mai trasferito questo copyright a nessuno.

Con queste parole si apre uno dei thread più seguiti dell’ultimo periodo nella lista Linux Kernel Mailing List creato da tale MikeeUSA, sviluppatore del gioco GPC-Slots 2 (personalmente mai visto né sentito prima d’ora), all’interno del quale l’autore dice di voler limitare l’utilizzo del suo codice ad alcune specifiche persone ed in generale a tutti quelli che aggiungono del “Code of Conduct” vicino al proprio codice.

Il problema è che lo sviluppatore ignora un punto fondamentale che già abbiamo trattato nel recente passato, precisamente quando lo stesso Richard Stallman ha confermato come i contributi al codice Linux non potessero essere annullati: una volta GPL, per sempre GPL.

Non bastasse la parola di Stallman, il buon Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, autore di riferimento per il mondo Linux di ZDNet, lo conferma dopo aver contattato diversi avvocati:

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

La GPLv2 ha diverse disposizioni che, se messe insieme, possono essere interpretate come una licenza irrevocabile da ciascun contributore.

Sebbene quindi, nero su bianco, le cose sembrino chiarissime ci sono dei buchi all’interno delle varie definizioni che possono creare contraddizioni di termini e confusione.

Certo le cose sarebbero molto più semplici se ogni sviluppatore che decide di sviluppare codice open-source ragionasse pensando di donare qualcosa senza alcun vincolo, rispettando il principio della gratuità su tutti i fronti (non solo monetaria quindi, ma anche ideologica). Ma questo è un mondo complicato, in cui le licenze tra cui bilanciarsi sono molteplici e molte cose cambiano in corso d’opera, vedi ad esempio l’introduzione del codice di condotta. Pertanto i passi vanno valutati con attenzione, un po’ come quando si pubblica una foto su internet pensando possa rimanere privata per sempre: impossibile. Lo stesso vale per il codice: ritrattare una volta che lo si è reso libero potrebbe rivelarsi molto, molto complicato.

Cosa ne pensate?


 No.1033632

>>1033629

Ty

So we have America and Italy(x2) on the women's + CoC side.

And Russia alone on men's side.


 No.1033634

@Richi Jennings

‏Verified account @RiCHi

Replying to @sjvn @ZDNet

haha nice try @mikeeusa

2:27 AM - 13 Feb 2019 from South East, England

----

S. Vaughan-Nichols

‏ @sjvn

Feb 12

No, you can't take open-source code back https://zd.net/2SJiEQd via @ZDNet & @sjvn You can't close the lid to Pandora's copyright box once you've opened your code using an #opensource license.


 No.1033636

Pierre Jackson - Google+

https://plus.google.com/107957485334658597778

Anonymous View

"No backsies!" https://www.zdnet.com/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-code -back/ · No, you can't take open-source code back | ZDNet · No, you can't take ...

https://plus.google.com/107957485334658597778


 No.1033637

I notice the argument is simply "NO YOU CANT LOLZZZ"

"NO BACKSIES LOLZ"

"OBVIOUSLY! LOLZ!"


 No.1033638

This is why I get a migraine arguing this issue.

No matter what I do the "counter argument" is simply "LLOOOLLZZZ NO!"

All legal reasoning is ignored. Just LOOKLLLLLLZZZ NO!!!! OOOBBVVUUSSLLLYYY.

I hate these fucking people thusly.

They don't even understand that when your "first defense" is an equitable one you have trash as a case. Equitable defenses are the last port of call, they are used in /every/ property case when the other side has NO legal case to make.

But here they're held up as a "sure fire win".

Even though the entirety of the law breaks the other way.


 No.1033640

File: 02615f375e0ca44⋯.webm (3.89 MB, 960x540, 16:9, dead moose.webm)

>mikee is back


 No.1033641

>>1033638

And that's all meaningless if you don't actually bring it to court


 No.1033642

saosebastiao 6 days ago

The person attempting to revoke their GPL licensed code is known for harassing the Debian Women and LinuxChix groups, as well as generally advocating for violence against women and feminists in particular. I mean the guy has openly advocated for the legalization of rape. He's absolutely a troll.

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

EDIT: lol, the trolls are definitely out in force today.

reply

xd 6 days ago

Sounds like he needs dealing with via law .. codes of conduct won't fix his behaviour.

reply


 No.1033643

>>1027969

>15 days ago

>he was LARPing after all

Mikee is all talk and no action


 No.1033645

>>1033641

It's in the hands of the 1000s of kernel hackers now.

My goal was to educate them so they would contact their local qualified attorney and formulate a strategy going forward.

If one erroneously believes one "has no case" because "LOLz No" one will not make an inquiry.

It's been months and the other side is still using the same non-arguments, I hope the kernel hackers of now and of old will see that.

One posted not too long ago on slashdot that he'd like to take his audio code contributions back from the kernel if he can, perhaps now he knows there is a way.


 No.1033647

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

<3 Ryoussia


 No.1033980

>>1033645

>It's been months and

...and you still could not file a valid DMCA claim, let alone sue anyone, let alone get any ruling on the matter.


 No.1033981

>>1033980

Learn how to greentext nigger


 No.1033986

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

<3 Ryoussia

Russia is the best.

Notice how things stand:

Russia is based.

Americans are 1/2 faggots.

Others are 2/2 faggots.


 No.1033994

>>1033981

<Learn how to greentext nigger

>no u


 No.1034030

>>1033638

They're afraid that their mighty gpl chain is rusting while blissfully ignore their foundation has been corrupted to the core.

The stockholm syndrome is strong with these people.


 No.1034070

heh, I've never looked at githubs DMCA page.

Apparently my finiancial institution has been hiring some really dumb pajeets and women.


 No.1034073

>>1034070

>Apparently my finiancial institution has been hiring some really dumb pajeets and women.

They are required by law.


 No.1034075

>>1034073 In my country, they are different. Companies hire women because of law, but they hire foreigners because of their low salary.


 No.1034083

>>1033981

Learn how to sign


 No.1034085

>>1033980

>...and you still could not file a valid DMCA claim

If you want to see an actual example of someone rescinding their code from a LGPLv3 project and having it taken down from github. It was called craftbukkit. At that time (and currently) practically all non vanilla minecraft servers used craftbukkit or a fork of it. In pretty much instantly killed the whole bukkit project.


 No.1034087

File: 47c91de83f634c8⋯.png (277.97 KB, 706x412, 353:206, 1428182492872.png)

If gpl was rescindable, could you even choose to rescind your license from a few select individuals?

Wouldn't that imply it's a different license for every individual? Rescission has to take place between two different parties, but the second party in the license is everyone.


 No.1034102

>>1034085

The whole Bukkit thing was so fucking stupid.

>Bukkit devs infringe on Mojangs copyright by including a decompiled version of Mojangs server code in Bukkit

>Mojang hires the developers but never tell anyone this

>Mojang forbids Pay-to-win servers in its EULA

>Butthurt ensues

>Lead Bukkit dev throws shitfit and end the project

>Mojang says lolno we own Bukkit

>Even more butthurt ensues

>Lead dev wants Mojang to opensource their proprietary server code because it is in a GPLed project completely forgetting that it was him that illegally put it there in the first place

>Mojang says lolno

>The lead dev then decides to DMCA the shit out of everyone


 No.1034134


 No.1034187

>>1034134

Irrevocable by copyright holder even without attached interest.


 No.1034413

>>1034087

>If gpl was rescindable, could you even choose to rescind your license from a few select individuals?

>Wouldn't that imply it's a different license for every individual?

Yes

>Rescission has to take place between two different parties, but the second party in the license is everyone.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The words my be the same, but it is a separate license.


 No.1034416

>>1034187

Go fuck yourself.

The Sky is red. See I can do it too.

>>1034134

There was no enforcement, and it was not an attempt: the license was revoked from whomever he revoked it from. It is a right of the copyright holder. He simply didn't bother to sue anyone that we know of.

Because he was affwaid he would not be employable in the industry!

I'm already unemployable in the industry because I hate women's rights and am pro-marry young girls. I'd gladly see the USA sink into the sea and white men eradicated from the earth (white men, by definition, are pro-women's rights anti-young-girl-marraige: the "white identity" is a UK and US invention made to replace the earlier ethnic nationalisms, the chosen lynchpin is the worship of "muh white woman")


 No.1034417

>>1034134

>>1034187

>migraine starts again.

You know, he should have sued the penniless infringers just to prove a point, but he didn't. Sucks not being a lawyer and having to pay someone else for all the legal research doesn't it. What would he have gotten though? He didn't register his copyright /prior/ to the infringements, so he couldn't get statutory damages nor attorneys fees, just damages. Back then what would that have been?

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

<3 Ryoussia


 No.1034473

>>1027681

Christ, this thread is STILL kicking about? I haven't read most of it and i'm not going to since I value my time and brain cells, but what I can gather from reading the backstory and OP and last few posts is:

> guy makes some shitty slot machine program with reddit-tier edgelord "lmao kill feminists" messages, releases it as libre software under GPL

> feminsts remove messages and post some silly little smug posting about it, whatever

> original guy gets butthurt "n-NUUU U CANT DO THAT REEE" and tries to revoke GPL over something this petty

> paints it as some huge moral crusade and shits up various websites and boards including this one, trying to make himself out as some sort of defender of free speech, won't shut up about it

> websites eventually get tired of his reee-ing & narcissistic spamming and finally ban him after their patience runs out, he cries censorship and cites this as proof that there's a large conspiracy working against him

> people are still bickering about this ridiculous case instead of immediately laughing it off of the board

this has got to be the gayest, most pathetic, petty & retarded controversy that I've ever seen. When I first read the thread title and subject I thought it was about something actually meaningful, like some govt or corp using someone's GPL'd work for nefarious purposes, but in reality it's just some moron who wants to show those feminists who's boss by kicking up a stink on the internet. Fucking embarrassing. It's like gamergate's retarded brother who shits his pants and somehow broke free of the attic he's locked in by his ashamed parents.

OP, all you've succeeded in doing is giving us and the GPL a bad name, and moreover revealing yourself to fit exactly the stereotype of whinging beta manchild that feminists would have people believe we all are. You've made yourself into a big flashing light that SJWs can point to and be like "see? that's what they're like!", so thanks fucker. The FOSS community and society at large would be greatly better off if you killed yourself, but I'd imagine you're the type of salty entitled little brat that you'd consider continuing to exist as some form of passive "fighting back" against society, plaguing it with your pathetic existence and getting in everyone's way as your revenge for being born.

And the rest of you are not much better. Haven't you faggots got anything better to do than to prop up shit like this? Christ on a bike, I hope to god that most people on here just ignored this thread hoping it would fuck off like I did for the longest time, because if this is what's left of /tech/ then there is no hope.

inb4 I'm a cuck or "aren't anti-feminists just as bad?" image macro or whatever, I think that feminism and social justice bullshit is taking over programming like a plague, and this faggot has singlehandedly undone our case by god knows how much by being a fucking baby and giving them all a perfect no-longer-a-strawman to point to as an excuse to further push SJWism into all corners. badly written but I've wasted enough time on this retarded non-issue.


 No.1034880

>Разработчик текстовой игры GPC-Slots 2, известный, как MikeeUSA, отозвал лицензию GPL 2 на свою игру для ряда левых популистов. В качестве причины он назвал неприемлемость размещения его кода в одном репозитории с правилами поведения разработчиков, запрещающими «сексизм» по отношению к женщинам. В своем сообщении он привел список правовых оснований, действительных в рамках правового поля США и позволяющих ему сделать это, а также призвал всех разработчиков последовать его примеру. Кроме того, он заявил, что продолжит отзывать лицензию и для других левых популистов. Леволиберальная помойка ZDNet уже опубликовала гневную статью по этому поводу.

<3 Russia

Russians the best.


 No.1034883

>>1034473

You did read it all, you're LARPing as "some other person, right thinking". You've been here since the begining.

The progression is as such.

Eons ago I was barred from a casino.

So I decided to write my own console slot machine software.

(Note: Linux doesn't seem to have much of any other console slot machine software, so shitty or not, this is the only game in town).

I included some easter eggs, if you write DeCSS it displays the "illegal prime" if you write "woman" it displays the sacrilegious thought.

(Say no to women's rights : the opposite of white-man's religion).

Valid input is X, P, A, C, and EXIT.

At some point years later some host admin's fat cunt "girlfriend" (we atleast hope he was getting something from it) became angry, and got my charming program removed from the host for the sacrilege against white women.

10 years pass.

Women have now taken over as a 'gate keeper' role vs those men who 'do it for free'. Some men are unhappy that their gratis contributions are repaid with slave driving, threats, and the like.

Opensource "visionaries" such as Bruce Perens, Matthew Garret, and others proclaim that they "do not need" the "old stick in the mud men" anymore, and such should be ejected to make room for women.

This angers more of the men who actually created the thing.

I offer a legal solution, because I am a lawyer and it's what comes to mind.

Some programmers declare I'm wrong etc etc.

They don't know shit.

So I give and example, and here we are.


 No.1034890

>>1034473

>OP, all you've succeeded in doing is giving us and the GPL a bad name,

Good. The GPL deserves a bad reputation. The one and only reason programmers use the GPL is because they believe that people who use their code to create derivative works must "free the source" if they redistribute binaries.

That is completely not the case in the USA. You will _NEVER_ succeed in having a court grant such specific performance. First the GPL is not a contract. Second SP is only avaiable in contract situations and will be granted only when there is no other reasonable way damages could be calculated. IE: when the thing in question is unique. Guess what is unique, at law.

Yes, REAL ESTATE. And that's pretty much _it_.

The GPL was always a bait and switch and RMS etc knew this from the start. What they purportedly wish to accomplish is not legally possible in the USA.

>and moreover revealing yourself to fit exactly the stereotype of whinging beta manchild that feminists would have people believe we all are.

I am.

No pay.

No work.

You don't pay child bride.

I do not devote my life to your society.

>You've made yourself into a big flashing light that SJWs can point to and be like "see? that's what they're like!",

I suppose that's somewhat Good. You should be way worse than me, however.

You would have power and stature if you would use leverage, if not force, to degrade or destroy the society that empowers your enemies, for one.

>so thanks fucker.

Don't mention it.

>The FOSS community and society at large would be greatly better off if you killed yourself,

I am not part of society. Society is women and their children, and the very rich. Society is not random men, and never was. Men should _NEVER_ work for the benefit of society, and should always exist to undermine, degrade, punish, destroy, and enslave Society.

>but I'd imagine you're the type of salty entitled little brat

You got me there. I am both entitled, and a brat.

Did you miss the "all private schools" part?

>that you'd consider continuing to exist as some form of passive "fighting back" against society,

NEET life forever. Infinite programming and vexing time.

>plaguing it with your pathetic existence and getting in everyone's way as your revenge for being born.

Unlike others, I was born purposely. My parents decided to have a kid, and there I was. No accident. No consent.

I also agree with YHWH who does not require consent from girls, and allows men to have female children (na'ar, padia, puella (hebrew, greek, latin) as brides.

>And the rest of you are not much better. Haven't you faggots got anything better to do than to prop up shit like this?

Maybe they "did it for free" too and would like to take their non-contributions back? (Remeber: no transfer of copyright, no real contribution, you still own the code)

>Christ on a bike,

Moronic americanism

>I hope to god that most people on here just ignored this thread hoping it would fuck off like I did for the longest time, because if this is what's left of /tech/ then there is no hope.

If men are not willing to use whatever leverage they have, they will always be used as slaves. It is time to /rescind/


 No.1034892

>>1034030

> >>1033638

>

>They're afraid that their mighty gpl chain is rusting while blissfully ignore their foundation has been corrupted to the core.

>

>The stockholm syndrome is strong with these people.


 No.1034894

>>1034473

>inb4 I'm a cuck or "aren't anti-feminists just as bad?" image macro or whatever, I think that feminism and social justice bullshit is taking over programming like a plague, and this faggot has singlehandedly undone our case by god knows how much by being a fucking baby and giving them all a perfect no-longer-a-strawman to point to as an excuse to further push SJWism into all corners. badly written but I've wasted enough time on this retarded non-issue.

<Retreat forever boys, it's the only way to win!

Mohammed didn't retreat. He ended up with child brides and a harem, his followers for the next millennia and a half benifit from his no-retreat-always-attack stance with their child brides and harems.


 No.1034896

>>1034473

(also programming for a living is doing it wrong: you work a job you don't really like nor dislike for $$ if you want, but keep /tech/ as a nice hobby for your free time...

Otherwise: enjoy your burnout cuck)


 No.1034898

Remeber NEETs: you were not asked for your consent to be born, and you signed no "Social Contract".


 No.1034904

>>1034473

>Christ on a bike

Americans like to intentionally commit small meaningless sacralige(s).

(This is their "rebellion"++).

While fervently upholding their state religion.

(++Which underwrites their much more meaningful obedience)

While unknowingly enforcing massive heresy all around the world.

(Which makes the world a trash world for men)


 No.1035627

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

<3 Ryoussia


 No.1035685

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

https://github.com/MikeeUSA2/GPC-Slots-2

Mikee eternally BTFO by Microsoft, Bill Gates himself is pointing and laughing at the LARPing cuck


 No.1036793

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

<3 Ryoussia


 No.1036794

>>1035685

Bill Gates is pretty rich.


 No.1036799

Why do you guys keep bumping mikeee's retarded threads?


 No.1036809

>>1036799

>you guys

All the bumps are done by Mikee, notice how he repeats old posts


 No.1036903

So why is the OP attacked so much? If the GPL is just a smoke of cards then that's worth pointing out, no?


 No.1036936

>>1036903

>a smoke of cards

That would be "smoke and mirrors," or "a house of cards." Perhaps you should leave the metaphors to people with an IQ above room temperature.


 No.1036954

>>1036903

Do you believe LARPers deserve anything else?


 No.1037022

>>1036936

>>1036954

Okay, so got an actual reply? I don't know anything about this topic but all I see is the OP getting attacked without refuting his claims.

Are the FOSS licenses worth anything or not?


 No.1037108

>>1037022

>Okay, so got an actual reply?

The GPLs are not rescindable.


 No.1037138

>>1037022

We did refute it by showing that he jumps to conclusions as he doesn't show good logic that connects premise to the conclusion. If he (OP) wants to make an argument, don't talk about social justice warriors and ownership of small girls. That doesn't do anything to support an argument.


 No.1038082

>>1037138

>We did refute it by showing that he jumps to conclusions as he doesn't show good logic that connects premise to the conclusion.

Support your premise. You are arguing from ignorance of the law.

<I don't understand the logical steps you took, so I will ignore those that I am unstudied in and claim they don't exist and were not mentioned.

> If he (OP) wants to make an argument, don't talk about social justice warriors and ownership of small girls.

The contention here is that talk of ownership of small girls somehow self-refutes the legal-reasoning regarding an unbacked promise being no promise at all (it's called an illusory promise). Since you know nothing of the law, you do not know what they teach you in the first week of contracts.

>That doesn't do anything to support an argument.

Nor does it hurt the argument.

>>1037108

They are. Every single one of them is. From 1 to 3, even though 3 attempts not to be.

The crux is very simple. In the United States for luser to hold owner to a "term", regarding the use of owner's property, luser must show that he has paid owner something for that "term" and thus there is consideration and a contract that luser can enforce the terms of.

If luser did not pay owner anything, there is no contract. Nothing is not consideration. Obeying a preexisting duty is not consideration.

Nothing is nothing.

It's very fair. You own your property. You cannot normally be dispossessed of it for no bargain. You are no one's slave, your property and yourself cannot normally be burdened for no bargain.

Licensee paid you nothing. He is not an owner of anything, this was not a gift or transfer. You simply gave him more permission than he previously held. You can rescind that permission at any time. He has paid you nothing to justify the burdening of your legal rights in such a way as to deny you them.


 No.1038110

>>1037022

>Are the FOSS licenses worth anything or not?

Not to the "consumer".

You cannot enforce them against the grantor. Any "promise" of "I will not rescind" is completely illusory under US law here, since it isn't backed by the taker by a payment etc.

Just as you could say someone can walk all over your lawn forever, the next day you could tell them to stop. It is the exact same thing and the exact same law.

Now if you have them pay you, in order for you to grant them permission, that's a different story. Your promise not to molest their degradation of your life and attachments is no longer an illusion: it's backed by the valuable consideration they have paid you.


 No.1038111

>>1036936

Maybe you should respect the Russians and their use of old church slavonic?

Maybe they don't use your cobbled together "english" 100 percent.

Maybe they speak in math and logic and atom bombs a little better than you, more important things, you see?


 No.1038112

>>1038082

Makes sense. So the whole religion of freetardism is based upon nothing.

Anyone have any objections?


 No.1038136


 No.1038150

>>1038112 (You)


 No.1038230

>>1038112

>>1038082

nice samefag, mikee


 No.1038344


 No.1038346

>>1038112

>Makes sense. So the whole religion of freetardism is based upon nothing.

Correct. Under US law, nothing gets you nothing.

The licensee is not protected against the owner.

Now, the licensee still cannot violate the copyright of the owner, so ignoring the licensing terms is not allowed, but nothing prevents the owner from withdrawing those permissions at any time. Licensee didn't pay for them, licensee doesn't "own" them.

>Anyone have any objections?

Everyone that want's to kick the Y males out of their own projects while keeping the fruits of their labour.


 No.1038347

> In his communication, he cited a list of legal grounds valid within the United States legal framework to enable him to do so, as well as urging all developers to follow suit. In addition, he said he would continue to revoke the license for other left-wing parrots. Left-hand-liberal dump ZDNet has already published an angry article about this.

<3 Ryoussia

>Разработчик текстовой игры GPC-Slots 2, известный, как MikeeUSA, отозвал лицензию GPL 2 на свою игру для ряда левых популистов. В качестве причины он назвал неприемлемость размещения его кода в одном репозитории с правилами поведения разработчиков, запрещающими «сексизм» по отношению к женщинам. В своем сообщении он привел список правовых оснований, действительных в рамках правового поля США и позволяющих ему сделать это, а также призвал всех разработчиков последовать его примеру. Кроме того, он заявил, что продолжит отзывать лицензию и для других левых популистов. Леволиберальная помойка ZDNet уже опубликовала гневную статью по этому поводу.

<3 Russia

Russians the best.


 No.1038350

>>1038136

State your issue. English is a cobbled together "language". Atleast old church slavonic rose from the naturally developed language of one people. It is simply the written version of their pathos.

Russian is newer but of a similar character.


 No.1038379

>all the newfags in this thread sucking mikee's dick

/tech/ is literally /g/ now. I want out this ride.


 No.1038403

>>1038379

<GPL is Revocable.


 No.1038502

https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems

>License revocation: Some CLA advocates warn of the prospect that a contributor may someday attempt to revoke a past license grant. To the extent that the concern is about largely judgment-proof individual contributors with no corporate affiliation, it is not clear why an Apache-style CLA provides more meaningful protection against this outcome compared to the use of an open source license. And, as with so many of the legal risks raised in discussions of open source legal policy, this appears to be a phantom risk. I have heard of only a few purported attempts at license revocation over the years, all of which were resolved quickly when the contributor backed down in the face of community pressure.

You will notice that RedHat does not discount the legal risks, only that the community was able to "reign-in" the wayward white male.

I have not backed down however :),

<To the extent that the concern is about largely judgment-proof individual contributors with no corporate affiliation

"We will get you fired if you revoke"


 No.1038503

>To the extent that the concern is about largely judgment-proof individual contributors with no corporate affiliation

AKA actual hackers, the people that programmed linux originally, and who's code is still in the core .. how do they treat it now... ah yes: "product"


 No.1038509

From GitHub Staff

Date 2019-02-20 20:10

Message Body

Hi MikeeUSA,

Unfortunately, a pen name does not suffice when used in combination with a disposable email address. Whether under the definition in 15 U.S.C 7006(5) which you cited, or as used in the DMCA, an electronic signature needs to be associated with a person, as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. 7006(8). A psuedonym, without other information that would allow us to associate that with a specific, identifiable person, does not meet 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i)'s requirement that it be signed by an authorized person. As a practical matter, this is especially necessary where, as you claim, an account that may not be you is posting content using that same pseudonym.

Even if that were not so, your notice would still be incomplete in two other ways.

First, it lacks "information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party," as you've used a disposable email address and provided no other contact information that would be sufficient to assure we can contact the complaining party. This type of reliable contact information is required by 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(iv).

Second, your notice does not appear to identify material which infringes on any exclusive rights in the original work. Both your source code and the repositories you identified are published under GPL licenses. You have not identified any way in which those repositories violate the GPL, and without more detail we cannot determine how redistributing or modifying GPL-licensed code would constitute infringing activity. While GitHub is not in a position to provide you with legal advice, here is an informative link about the irrevocability of GPL licenses: https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4

Once you've revised your notice to include the required details, please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we will process it expeditiously.

Thanks,

GitHub Staff


 No.1038516

My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,

along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person

to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the

request.

This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.

Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control

the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation

and distribution of derivatives of the work.

I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe subsequently,

and with notice of the revocation.

A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the

United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays

the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable

bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an attached

interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest

with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is illusory.

Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing

legal duty is not valid consideration.

The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US Jurisprudence.

In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract (and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the lower court in the 9th circuit:

>"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license."

This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to agree to any of it's terms.

I invite you to consult this learned treatise:

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

In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)

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

Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249130

All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.

I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.

Signed;

--MikeeUSA--


 No.1038518


 No.1038637

>>1038509

based Microsoft


 No.1038660

>>1038379

>implying it's not all Mikee

>>1038509

Failing a DMCA claim in 3 separate ways is incredible, even for a LARPer such as yourself.


 No.1041882

GPL


 No.1041883

>>1038660

There is no failure. They are simply not complying.


 No.1041884

Some replies:

Re: DMCA takedown notice

From chocolatejollis38@gmail.com

Date 2019-03-06 04:08

Message Body

I am not a member of github staff, nor am I party to any Draconian takedown request that I know of. And further, I intend to defy you on federal principle whilst laughing most heartily in your face.

In conclusion, get the hell out of my email inbox, you fucking knob.

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

Re: DMCA takedown notice

From Martin Schroeder

Date 2019-03-06 04:48

Message Body

The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back

your gift to the community instead of just accepting your

responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign

with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name

as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at

all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are

the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable

doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not

just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody

else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then

stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a

court.

Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not

with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a

work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met

should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,

unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the

possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any

other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they

accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and

disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole

like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it

doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

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

Re: DMCA takedown notice

From swack

Date 2019-03-06 05:06

It COULD work as an essay. I don't know if you would want to or if you could stick to this format, but here is my idea:

Title: "You CAN revoke GPL -- here's how I just did it"

Structure: A concise chronological story starting from the beginning (mentioning the initial controversy/our first story), moving through your efforts and communications, ending with the successes, and finally some thoughts about it.

You can't overwhelm people with mountains of random unattributed text and legal arguments they don't understand (must be explained in layman's terms) or they won't read it.

Let me know what you think.


 No.1041885

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

Subject: Re: DMCA takedown notice

From GitHub Staff

To mikeeusa@redchan.it

Date 2019-03-07 02:30

Hi MikeeUSA,

I've done my best to address your concerns below. Until you provide a complete DMCA takedown notice, we are unable to act on your request.

> My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,

> along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person

> to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the

> request.

As explained in our previous email, that is not the standard required by 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i).

> I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

Based on the information you've provided, we are unable to determine that any valid license revocation has taken place here.

> A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable ...

> An interest attaches when a licensee pays

> the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable

> bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such anattached

> interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of valuable consideration. Moreover, you have not addressed other doctrines, such as reliance or promissory estoppel, which would prevent revocation even in the absence of valuable consideration.

> The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US

> Jurisprudence.

While they are in easily-missed footnotes, the linked article contains citations to three cases which support their respective underlying legal theories. Please note the article is provided for informational purposes, and GitHub is unable to give legal advice about open-source licensing or copyright questions.

If you would like to revise your notice to include the required details, please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected

sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable DMCA notice, we will process it expeditiously.

Thanks,

GitHub Staff


 No.1042588

>>1041885

based Github


 No.1042598

>>1041883

>There is no failure.

>They are simply not complying.

So their refusal to comply is success? Dumbass.

I just cloned the repo from GitHub. Can you feel the freedom? It's exhilarating. But then I rm -rf'd it because your casino game sucks, faggot.


 No.1042611

>>1042598

based. sage negated though :^)


 No.1043950

GPL


 No.1043952

>>1042598

>So their refusal to comply is success? Dumbass.

Guess why lawsuits exist.

Their claim is "We don't know author rescinded"

and " U have 2 prove the other person didn't pay your"

Both bullshit.


 No.1043954

>>1042598

Seems you have forgotten the whole point of this operation, dumbass piece of fucking shit.

It is to edify the linux programmers as to their right to rescind.

Think anyone will use the "We don't know who u R" "Defense" against them?


 No.1043957

>>1042598

I notice you ignore this:

>>1038502

Where redhat cannot disclaim the possibility of revocation.

Once the male lawyers reviewed the law they noticed that the woman lawyer was wrong.


 No.1043959

> > Re: DMCA takedown notice

> > To GitHub Staff

> > Date Mar 15, 2019

I am going to sue your staff for contributory copyright infringement in their personal capacity, in addition to you company.

I have given you ample notice to remove the work.

> Moreover, you have not addressed other doctrines, such as reliance or promissory estoppel, which would prevent revocation even in the absence of valuable consideration.

These are equitable defenses. Not defenses-at-law. They are determined on a case by case basis. Promissory estoppel is most often "awarded" when a defendant has, on the reliance of explicit promises to him by the owner, laid out monies to purchase improvements for the affected property.

An example is when one builds extra buildings on a piece of land one was promised ownership on upon the owners death. It is much related to the old Livery of Seisin which was used in the conveyance of land and is, in fact, a modern substitute for it.

There is little relevance between such and a licensee, one of many, who, for no outlay, had permission to use a piece of software. Permission which was later revoked.

> Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to

> locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL

> licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of

> valuable consideration.

The John Doe would have to prove that there was a contract, it is not me, the copyright holder, who's duty it is to show that there was none.

One cannot prove a negative. You know this very well.

It is the consideration (payment) that would create a contract which a licensee could attempt to rely upon.

Where there is no such consideration there is no contract.

Here the John Doe admitted that he simply downloaded the work and also admitted that there was no contract between him and I

"Thank God", he added.

This is attested to in the original complaint, the John Doe is quoted, and his testimony is linked.

However it is not my duty to prove to you that there is _not_ any consideration.

That is proving a negative. It is a duty of the John Doe's defense to prove that there is such a payment, which there is not.

I was never paid by the John Doe.

You are being completely disingenuous here. You think you are clever, but you will be sorry once my legal bill is being paid out of your personal expenses for your blatant copyright infringement of my work. The courts won't think you're "cute" or "clever".

I have addressed your claim that my signature was invalid. Your understanding of what is required of a signature and the purpose of a signature is incorrect. A signature simply shows assent of the party to the validity of the document. An X is sufficient. Here I have chosen to use my long-held pen name, MikeeUSA. I have also published these notices at the place of the publication of the work, to give further confirmation.

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

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

Forewarned is forearmed.

Sincerely,

Signed,

--MikeeUSA--

On 2019-03-07 02:30, GitHub Staff wrote:

> Hi MikeeUSA,


 No.1043963

>>1027895

Can confirm. A physics professor of mine attended MIT with Stallman, and while on a date, stallman recognized him, walked right up sat down at table at started chatting up the girl he was out with.


 No.1043969

>Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not with the license.

"The law is wrong because it doesn't commit a taking regarding things that were not transferred" is what this marxist is saying.

> A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work, unless the terms of the license itself are broken.

That is so: if you paid for those terms. If you paid nothing you get nothing. The linux kernel contributors did not GIVE anything away, they allowed USE of a thing THEY own. If they wanted to GIVE their property away they could have done so by _TRANSFERRING_ it to a non profit such as the FSF, or declaring it the domain of the public. They chose to do neither.

>Having the possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they accepted the license

There was no acceptance required. YOU are not allowed to use the owners property WITHOUT his permission, YOU do not have the right to "accept or reject" his dictats regarding his PROPERTY. You must OBEY the owner's demands regarding HIS property. There is no contract, terms, negotiation here.

YOU give nothing, YOU get nothing.

>would have tremendous negative consequences and disruptions to many areas of the society.

Society is "women and their (female) children". Why should men care for their enemies and slave masters?

How is YOU not getting something for free harming "society"? It's how society functions. You must pay Society (Women) your whole life for a little taste, and then they send you to prison or the poorhouse once they're done with you.

>If the law has a loophole

This is not a loop hole. It is a basic function of US contracting and licensing law. Just because you don't like that a gratis non-exclusive license that you have benefited under while also trying to use to convert the Author's property whilst kicking him to the curb, is revocable by that Author, doesn't mean there is some "loophole" here. It works as designed: the Copyright owner is a property owner and can decide how his property is to be used. If you want a non-revocable-outside-the-terms license you must contract for one and pay the author good consideration.

>like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

Who the FUCK is "WE"

WHO is "WE"

"WE" isn't me. And I damn sure am a Open Source progammer, music producer, media creator, 3d modeler, game designer, etc.

And I am NOT "WE".

Maybe "WE" is faggot hangers-on like yourself? Who just take from the "males" and then try to dispossess them of even their dignity while converting their works?


 No.1043970

>>1043963

>Can confirm. A physics professor of mine attended MIT with Stallman, and while on a date, stallman recognized him, walked right up sat down at table at started chatting up the girl he was out with.

"I'm autistic so I can cock block you"

Is that the scheme?


 No.1043974

File: efc5037f42108c7⋯.jpg (78.33 KB, 480x581, 480:581, mikeeusa.jpg)

>>1043952

>Guess why lawsuits exist.

Why don't you sue me then? Btw my repo on based Github now has two forks XD

>>1043954

>he seriously thinks that Linux devs would throw a temper tantrum and try to """rescind""" their contributions from the kernel

lol you can't rescind btw

>>1043957

>Once the male lawyers

who?

>>1043959

>I am going to sue your staff for contributory copyright infringement in their personal capacity, in addition to you company.

TOP LARP

>One cannot prove a negative

You absolutely can

>You think you are clever, but you will be sorry once my legal bill is being paid out of your personal expenses

pic related. it's you

>>1043963

RMS is a true alpha male


 No.1043975

>>1043970

"I'm so autistic I have zero qualms about chatting up girls, no matter the context" god damn I wish I was that autistic.


 No.1044817

GPL is Revocable.


 No.1044818

>>1043974

>lol you can't rescind btw

YES YOU CAN YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT.

YOU PAID NOTHING YOU HAVE NO FUCKING INTEREST TO HOLD THE GRANTOR TO HIS "word".


 No.1044819

>>1043974

>t. "A license is a transfer"

>Anything licensed to me I own, forever

>Permission can never be withdrawn

>Free/Nothing - is good consideration


 No.1044822

Remember: the only thing that "prevents" a licensor from "going back on his word" is if the licensee has an interest in the property.

An interest is created when the licensee pays the licensor for permission to use the property, or in other cases when the licensor induces the licensee to make payments to third parties for the improvement of real property (land) in reliance on the licensor (this is usually in a inheritance case: estate disputes licensor's dispensations to licensee).

Here the licensee paid the licensor nothing. If there was a "promise not to revoke" (which there isn't even in the GPL2), it is inoperative without the licensee "buying" that "right".

Linux licensing operates under the same principals.


 No.1044825

> https://opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems

>License revocation: Some CLA advocates warn of the prospect that a contributor may someday attempt to revoke a past license grant. To the extent that the concern is about largely judgment-proof individual contributors with no corporate affiliation, it is not clear why an Apache-style CLA provides more meaningful protection against this outcome compared to the use of an open source license. And, as with so many of the legal risks raised in discussions of open source legal policy, this appears to be a phantom risk. I have heard of only a few purported attempts at license revocation over the years, all of which were resolved quickly when the contributor backed down in the face of community pressure.

Notice how they hand-wave it.

"Guy backed down, don't look behind this curtain"

You can revoke. Their only power against you is getting you fired/blackballed. If you do not give a shit about their "industry" you C A N fuck them completely. You have revoke and sue, and you really want to do so in a bloc with like minded, once you get the ball rolling, it's the doom of the project.


 No.1044828

This thread would have been more interesting during the SCO lawsuit days. Now it's just a sad go-nowhere /pol/i/tech/ thread.


 No.1044829

>>1027681

>"GPL is Revocable" (== incel terrorism -reddit)

You can revoke your contribution to open source commmunities in some countries since you didn't make any contractions with money. If you got money for that, you can't revoke it wherever you live.

I think you can revoke your contributions to any open source communities and it might have an effect in South Korea.


 No.1044849

>>1027933

Never stop giving the kikes trouble. Since GitHub did not comply they are complicit in the theft of your work and you should sue the M$ niggers.

>>1027940

>Because you are a faggot. You think you can give them undeserved credit and get your dick wet.

This. Desperate orbiters are almost worse than niggers.

>>1027967

Shouldn't you be watching shit porn and watching a sandnigger rape your mother?


 No.1044870

>>1044849

weak bait, 56% goblin.


 No.1044872

>>1044828

The law didn't change. What are you trying to say?

Be articulate. 10 years is nothing in the field of law.


 No.1044876

>>1044849

Ty

>>1044870

Projection?

You accuse others of what you are.

Most US whites are all European. Sure such technically is a mutt, but atleast a friendly mutt.


 No.1044878

>>1044829

In the case of being paid, but not transferring the copyright, you would fail if you tried to revoke from the licensee who paid you. You may succeed in revoking from licensees who did not pay you however, even if one licensee paid you. The one (or handful) that paid have actually paid for the licensing terms so they can rely on them.


 No.1044879

And yes, Intel can revoke it's license to use it's drivers from non-paying "customers", GPL or not. Sarah Sharp posted on twitter "if this were so Intel could revoke!" Yes, Sarah, it would be so, and it is so.


 No.1044882

File: eaedb9537c010da⋯.jpeg (34.93 KB, 719x742, 719:742, average american.jpeg)

File: 0eec9f425f9fe51⋯.png (933.44 KB, 1343x508, 1343:508, amerimutt.png)

>>1044876

>Most US whites are all European.


 No.1045146

OP still assblasted because based Microsoft doesn't listen to their whining.


 No.1045428

>>1045146

I notice how you have graduated from

>No you CANT

>No you WONT

>NO YOU DIDN'T

>Haha, M$ won't listen to you.


 No.1045431

>>1043959

There has been no response to this.

Usually, however, once you inform an adversary that you are going to go forward with legal proceedings, they go mute.


 No.1045432

>>1044882

Why is it that fat americans with hobgoblin female masters hate fit muslims that marry cute little girls?


 No.1045444

>>1045428

>I notice how you have graduated from

>>No you CANT

You can't rescind.

>>No you WONT

Nobody said that you won't try to rescind.

>>NO YOU DIDN'T

You can't rescind.

>>Haha, M$ won't listen to you.

Based Microsoft won't act on your invalid DMCA takedown notice. This has nothing to do with your license recission.

So, nothing has "graduated". I've been entirely consistent.


 No.1045449

so someone thinks he can revoke gpl licenses and *allegedly* has convinced some hosts to take down some repos, yes?

how does this prove shit? illegal DMCAs happen all the time even though the punishments can be pretty severe.


 No.1045506

>You can't rescind.

Yes I can, and I have. I own the code, I licensed it under a gratis license, the licensees gave me nothing, I can revoke at will.

That is the law. You have no refutation of this.

I am an attorney and I know what I am talking about.

Illusory promises are not enforceable against the promissor. Not that any promise was even made here.

You are wrong.

>Nobody said that you won't try to rescind.

You said I wouldn't send DMCA requests. You were wrong.

>You can't rescind.

I can and I have. You said I wouldn't send the requests. I did. You said I wouldn't send them against other hosts. I did. You said I never sent them to github. I did.

>Based Microsoft won't act on your invalid DMCA takedown notice. This has nothing to do with your license recission.

The notice is valid. It is signed by me, and any reasonable person would understand that. The court uses a reasonable person standard. Pseudo anonymity is no problem for the law and is fine in the DMCA context. Signatures do not have to be your legal name. They can be an X, or any mark that shows your assent to the validity of the document.

>>1045449

>how does this prove shit? illegal DMCAs happen all the time even though the punishments can be pretty severe.

There is nothing illegal about me controlling the distribution of my works. It is one of my exclusive rights under the copyright statute. I have ellected to make use of it.

Claiming someone is a criminal, however, IS per-se libel. Would you like to be sued?


 No.1045509

<Spread the word as far as you can

<The GPL is quantum nullus when it comes to a licensee "enforcing" it against the grantor, as are _ALL_ the gratis licenses.

If you have not received remuneration from licensee, that license he holds is simply an illusory promise at best. He cannot hold you, the grantor, to it and you can revoke it at any time.

The GPL is revocable, as is any gratis license.

"Nothing" is not good consideration for value.

It's not good consideration for anything at all.


 No.1045510

>>1045506

>You said I wouldn't send DMCA requests. You were wrong.

Granted. I didn't actually believe that you would send invalid DMCA takedown notices. But you actually did it. Absolutr madlad.

I disagree with everything else though. You can't rescind and you're not a lawyer. You're a LARPer.


 No.1045511

<Lawrence Rosen's book "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law":

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./

Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.

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.


 No.1045513

>>1045510

I can rescind. I have rescinded from the John Doe.

I am a license attorney.

My DMCA requests are valid.


 No.1045524

>>1045428

>everyone laughing at my schizo ramblings is the same person

Schizo confirmed


 No.1045531

>mikeeusa

Wasn't he already spewing asspie shit years ago?

Can't believe he's still fucking up /tech/


 No.1045533

>>1045513

Sorry, bro. This is my license and even though you claim to have rescinded it, it is still there.

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/LICENSE


 No.1045757

The thing about the GPL is, that... it's revocable.


 No.1045758

>>1045533

>Sorry, bro. This is my license and even though you claim to have rescinded it, it is still there.

Nope, the license has been revoked from you. You do not own my code, it is my property. I have chosen to revoke the permission I had given, from you specifically. That file is not the license. It is a written memorandum of the license. The license itself is /permission/ given by me to others.

The written memorandum is not "the" license. A license is an idea, it is permission, not a piece of paper.

Just as a contract is an agreement, not a piece of paper. If you have a canceled contract, waving around the memorandum does you no good.

I have rescinded, canceled, ended your permission.

Since you never payed anything for the permission, you have no secured interest in the license.

Illusory promises are just that: illusions. They are not enforceable against the promissor. (not that any promise was made here in the first place).

You are violating my copyright, specifically my exclusive power to control distribution and modification of the work, and of derivative works. I have chosen to use that power against you. I will sue you if I find out who you are.


 No.1045766

>>1045758

>I will sue you if I find out who you are.

My name is John Doe. Here is my address: >>1027967


 No.1045770

>>1045758

That's all well and good but it's bullshit. My license is still here.

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/LICENSE


 No.1045772


 No.1045804

>>1045770

Incorrect, the license has been revoked from you. You do not own my code, it is my property. I have chosen to revoke the permission I had given, from you specifically. That file is not the license. It is a written memorandum of the license. The license itself is /permission/ given by me to others.

The written memorandum is not "the" license. A license is an idea, it is permission, not a piece of paper.

Just as a contract is an agreement, not a piece of paper. If you have a canceled contract, waving around the memorandum does you no good.

I have rescinded, canceled, ended your permission.

Since you never payed anything for the permission, you have no secured interest in the license.

Illusory promises are just that: illusions. They are not enforceable against the promissor. (not that any promise was made here in the first place).

You are violating my copyright, specifically my exclusive power to control distribution and modification of the work, and of derivative works. I have chosen to use that power against you. I will sue you if I find out who you are.


 No.1045805

>>1045772

Simply wrong.

Infuriatingly wrong.

_Intentionally_ wrong just to send me off the deepend.


 No.1045806

>>1045770

>If one keeps a copy of a receipt, and then sells the object, one still owns the object, because "Here's my receipt"


 No.1045826

>>1045804

>Incorrect, the license has been revoked from you

But it is still there: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/LICENSE


 No.1045841

Heh, ED has a link to mikee's website:

https://archive.is/http://mikeeusa.pressword.com


 No.1045856

>>1045826

Yes, but it is not operative for _YOU_.

For almost _everyone_ else on the planet: yes that is the permission they have been granted by me. But NOT YOU (and a handful of other people, enumerated a few threads ago).

Don't you get it? _YOUR_ permission was revoked. It's like you having a price tag from some hat you no longer own. It's a momento, and indeed others who buy that same hat will be encountering the same price tag, but it doesn't matter regarding you anymore.

It's like you've been banned from a store. You can SEE those prices, those LOW prices... those NONEXISTANT PRICES OF FREE FRREREEEEEEEEE.

But the owner just won't let you in no-mo.

Because he's a racist.

That's how it be.


 No.1045857

>>1045841

I got banned from pressword for no reason. And blogger.


 No.1045858

A case in point: Tiffany (Of “I Think We’re Alone Now” Fame).

Posted January 14, 2008 * Comments(0)

A case in point: Tiffany (Of “I Think We’re Alone Now” Fame).

code:

C

O

D

E

Name: Tiffany

Birth Date: October 2, 1971

Time of First Record Signing: 1984

Age at Time of First Record Signing: 13

Remeber the old pop hit from the 80s “I Think We’re Alone Now” which was sung by Tiffany, a 16 year old girl in the year 1987.

quote:

Q

U

O

T

E I Think We’re Alone Now (Alone Now) (ClapClap)

There doesn’t seem to be anyone around

I Think We’re Alone Now (Alone Now) (ClapClap)

The beating of our hearts is the only sound.

Ever wonder what happened to her?

Well she got married in 1992 at the age of 21, had a child, posed nude in playboy at the age of 30, divorced her husband in the year 2004 (at the age of 33), and then married another man.

Basically what happened is that she has lived the normal whorish life that most of our women live today.

What once was a promising young girl of value has become a debauchered hussie.

Why?

Because of two things:

Her mother.

Herself.

Tiffany was allowed to start her musical career at age 13 (or encouraged to by a parent with dollar signs in her eyes). She gained fame, fortune, and ultimately emancipation that comes from fortune and a society and country that supports women having and holding power.

The problem is that Tiffany and Tiffany’s mother were allowed to make their own decisions and, as usual, made terrible decisions lathered in whorish immorality, avarice, and greed with NO regard for what they were stealing from the domain Men.

What they stole is yet another good wife who would serve and bring happiness to one of our fellow Men.

Instead of being signed to a record contract at 13, the girl should have been married off to a Man and be allowed to serve him and make him happy as a girl will naturally do at that age if unmolested by a mandatory pro-women’s rights anti-man brainwashing regime. Tiffany could have used her voice to sing to her husband who would have loved her more by himself then the entirity of the world combined will love her now or at anytime.

Instead of being able to follow the path that God has put forth for girls of marrying a Man (for Life) once she is able to have children (which usually is somewhere between the ages of 12 years old to 14 years old), this girl was instead put on the path of making money for her mother and then released to the whoredom that almost always inevitibly follows in the case of a completely emancipated female.

A girl ‘on her own’ is a theft committed against all Men of this world.

It is both against God’s law of the Bible and against all that is benificial for Men.

Unfortunatly we can yet do nothing to stop the further use of girls for the enjoyment of the mother rather then for bestowing Happiness upon a Man as God intended.

If you listen to her popular song it’s about love. It’s a pitty that while she was singing of it was kept from it. It is even more of a crime that countless numbers of Men have been denyed the true love that stems from marrying young females of childbearing age because our Feminist System denys Men all that is good, and brainwashes girls to believe in all that is Bad.

“I think we’re alone now”

Yes Tiffany, we are alone. Those who would be our compainions have been robbed from us from a young age by the schools and the media: both who support women’s rights and deny Men’s Liberty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_%28singer%29


 No.1045860

>>1045856

>Don't you get it?

I don't. The license is still there. You claim to have taken it away, but here it is: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/LICENSE

>It's like you've been banned from a store.

??????

I'm not in a store. You have given me GPC-Slots 2 under the GPL-2.0-or-later. I took it to Github. The license is still there.


 No.1045896

>>1045860

The license terms have been rescinded from you. It does not matter if you keep the file up. The permission does NOT come from the "physical" file, it comes from ME the OWNER of the work.

LICENSE.TXT is NOT the OWNER of GPC-SLOTS2

YOU are not the OWNER of GPC-SLOTS2.

I AM THE OWNER OF THE CODE.

I have decided to rescind my previously given permission, regarding MY property, from YOU.

That language that you PREVIOUSLY relied upon, when you downloaded the file, is NOT applicable to you anylonger.

The permission (license) has been recinded from you.

YOU do not OWN "your copy" of MY code.

I OWN "your copy" of MY code.

I did NOT transfer copyright.

I simply ALLOWED use, via a GRATUITOUS (FREE) license.

Which does NOT bind ME to any terms since YOU did not PAY CONSIDERATION FOR ANY TERMS.


 No.1045897

>>1045860

>You have given me GPC-Slots 2 under the GPL-2.0-or-later.

No. I have not given you GPC-Slots 2 at all. I am going to find out who you are and I am going to either sue you or kill you.


 No.1045898

>>1045896

Actually the code is on Microsoft's servers. So they own the code.

>>1045897

Let's meet up here: >>1027967

I chose the place, you choose the time.


 No.1045899

A non-exclusive license is not a gift. It is not a transfer of ownership, nor of interest. It is simply permission.

It seems that the only way you will accept the reality of license-rescission is by the physical destruction of the license memorandum.

The license is an idea however. If it were on a piece of paper perhaps you would accept the burning of the paper. It does not however, it exists in your mind.

So the proper course of action will be to burn you alive. Then you will know that the license has been rescinded. This is the correct course of action.


 No.1045900

>>1045898

>Actually the code is on Microsoft's servers. So they own the code.

No they do not. I own the code. I am the copyright owner.

If I find out who you are, I will make a memorandum of license rescission by burning you alive. Thus the code will be expunged from your mind. A true and proper full rescission that you are looking for.


 No.1045901

>>1045899 (checked)

>>1045900 (checked)

>LARPing


 No.1046338

Shiet nigga, we ain't havin to facilitain' no knowlege.

You feel me?

We don't _RELY_ on no host.

We don't MAKE no HOST the centre of us.

Nigga.

We just push.

We gots our own shiet, no public, jusf fo us, Bitch.

That's how it sposed 2 be.

Linus fag made dat git shit so you wouldn't have 2 pinch hit.

But shiet you white people are fags anyhow.

You make git like anutha SVN or CVS with oh the pay lay that be in the bay day. Shiet. Is like you beggin fo someone 2 dicc U down.

Man we don't whants u.

We dont's knows U.

And we don't wants U be round us AT oh.

So we run our own shiet, and nuffin fo you 2 connect 2 (Fags).

Word.


 No.1048753

I have, at this moment, chosen to terminate any permissions GitHub and

the GitHub Staff have enjoyed regarding my protected work (GPC-Slots 2).

Any allowances GitHub (GH) and the GitHub Staff (staff) had regarding GPC-Slots 2

(the work) is hereby revocated, rescinded, and made null.

The allowances memorialized in the writing known as the "GPL" are

rescinded from GitHub and the GitHub staff.

I am not in privity of contract regarding the licensing and

distribution of GPC-Slots 2 with GitHub nor any of the GitHub staff,

nor have I ever been.

I have not been paid any good, value, or consideration for the

dispensation of the permissions.

The permissions are freely revocable by me, the Copyright Holder, in

furtherance of my pursuit of my various exclusive rights regarding the

work, none of which I have transferred or contracted away for value.

Should Git Hub or any member of the Git Hub Staff choose to defy my

wishes, regarding the work, I will seek remedy at my pleasure: both

against the corporate person and in their individual capacities.

Signed;

--MikeeUSA--

Note: I have posted this notice at the original place of download, of

the work, lest there be any contrived confusion regarding veracity of

person or pleasure.


 No.1048754


 No.1048755


 No.1048760


 No.1048763

>>1048760

That's just the limit of LARPing. No matter how much energy you put it, it's just not the real thing.


 No.1048766

You're doing G-d's work Mikee. As a jew you'll be in Messianic paradise soon.


 No.1048784

>1048760

Holy shit, that code looks horribly boring. No wonder OP went insane.

But not only that... how can you write a game without getting far enough in Game Programming for Dummies to understand for loops?

[...]
} elsif (($potluckstartinfo eq '3p') or ($potluckstartinfo eq '3P')) {
if ($money >= (3 * $coin)) {
$potluckplaylevel = 3;
$money = $money - (3 * $coin);
$moneyexp = $moneyexp + (3 * $coin);
$potluckstmc2 = $potluckstmc2 + (3 * $coin);
$spins = $spins + 1;
$potluckstspins = $potluckstspins + 1;
if ($proadd == 1) {
$projkpot = $projkpot + (3 * $coin);
$proadd = 0;
} else {
$proadd = 1;
}
newlines();
potluckmain();
} else {
newlines();
potluckmain2();
}
} elsif (($potluckstartinfo eq '4p') or ($potluckstartinfo eq '4P')) {
if ($money >= (4 * $coin)) {
$potluckplaylevel = 4;
$money = $money - (4 * $coin);
$moneyexp = $moneyexp + (4 * $coin);
$potluckstmc2 = $potluckstmc2 + (4 * $coin);
$spins = $spins + 1;
$potluckstspins = $potluckstspins + 1;
if ($proadd == 1) {
$projkpot = $projkpot + (4 * $coin);
$proadd = 0;
} else {
$proadd = 1;
}
newlines();
potluckmain();
} else {
newlines();
potluckmain2();
}
[...]

TBH if I had written that and was a piece of shit asspie retard i'd probably also spend the rest of my life trying to get it removed from the internet.

But I'm not so I laugh at the horrible code I wrote in the past.


 No.1048795

>>1048784

>for loops

Excuse my retardation, you don't even need a loop, just regular variables.


 No.1048866

>>1048784

inb4 it's more efficient that way


 No.1048907

>>1048784

Game uses while, distrusts for!


 No.1048909

>>1048784

Perl has an infinite stack, you can use recursion forever!

And yes, I've tested it. This wouldn't fly in Quake C ofcourse.


 No.1048911

>>1048760

Doesn't matter if you're not the John Doe who got the license rescinded.

Though, now we've rescinded from GitHub itself too

>>1048753

>>1048755

>>1048763

If someone is making forks, but is not the person(s) from which the license was rescinded, what are they proving? I didn't rescind from all the world, just a handful of people... (but now github itself aswell, but that's a new development)

>>1048766

Many thanks.


 No.1048939

>As of 7 March 2011, using then-current LOC (lines of code) of a 2.6.x Linux kernel and wage numbers with David A. Wheeler's calculations it would cost approximately $3bn (about €2.2bn) to redevelop the Linux kernel as it keeps getting bigger. An updated calculation As of 26 September 2018, using then-current 20,088,609 LOC (lines of code) for the 4.14.14 Linux kernel and the current US National average programmer salary of $75,506 show it would cost approximately $14,725,449,000 dollars (£11,191,341,000 pounds) to rewrite the existing GPL-2.0 code that existing contributors still have claimed to if they decided to rescind the grant of license to the kernel source tree. [159]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

https://dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html

<Wikipedia article on Linux acknowledges for years the common legal knowledge that gratis licenses are revocable. Completely news to random idiot white men who do NOT like young girls. White men are stupid.


 No.1049031

>>1048907

>Game uses while, distrusts for!

What are you talking about?

>>1048909

>Perl has an infinite stack, you can use recursion forever!

What the fuck are you talking about, how is this recursion related?

Look at the code! Look at it!

if a == 4 then b = 4

if a == 5 then b = 5

if a == 6 then b = 6


 No.1049865

>>1049031

>What the fuck are you talking about, how is this recursion related?

Let's just say, without that feature, the program wouldn't run ;)


 No.1050044

>>1049865

Please don't tell me the main loop calls itself...


 No.1051291

GPL is revocable.


 No.1051292

>>1050044

Originally it did IIRC. That was changed something like 13 years ago.

Perl's infinite recursion could be useful math-wise.. if Perl wasn't so slow.


 No.1051295

>>1048939

No response.

It's been common knowledge that absent you paying owner, a license such as the GPL is not worth the paper it's not printed on vs the owner.

Fucking morons.


 No.1051296

"Eye promise to do or not do these things for no dorra!"

Why yes, this surely isn't an illusory contract.

Angry women and transgender faggots who don't ever program disagree!


 No.1051299

Imagine for a moment, that you promised some mother fucker the world, and indeed you owned the world, for fweeeee (free).

You pieces of shit think you can get the world. For nothing.

Nope.

That contract is no contract: it is an illusion.

Contracts 101.


 No.1051301

Yes daddy! Revoke it harder!


 No.1051408

>>1051301

That's the sad thing.

Since we are talking of imaginary property, it can't be revoked any harder or softer.

It can only be revoked or not revoked.


 No.1051413

Every time I see this thread, I laugh, knowing Mikee is frothing with autistic rage because he has finally come up against an entity with a real legal team that's not going to fold immediately.

Time to follow through on your threats, buddy! File that lawsuit so we can dox your pedo ass.


 No.1051490


 No.1051771

>>1051413

>please give up all your advantages

>be a real White man: who gave up all his privileges to the White Woman!


 No.1051773

>>1051413

The purpose of these threads (by which is included all the LKML postings and the triggered news articles) is precisely to inform the Linux Kernel copyright holders of their legal rights.

It is not for my own person to "win" anything.

It is to show your counter arguments for what they are.


 No.1051774

>>1051773

>blah blah

You are a disinfo agent like the flat earthers but your job is not to distract truthers but to distract programmers so we don't create decentralized facebook and secure privacy-respecting browsers.


 No.1052024

>>1051774

Nope. I'm a lawyer and a programmer.

I hate women's rights, because I am barred from marrying cute young girls because of such.

I noticed women were socially taking over the work of men and suborning said men, as women always do.

I informed the fucking RETARDED IGNORANT WHITE MALES (who are _fucking dumb_ and meek except when protecting MUHHH WHHIIITTEEE WUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMANNNNN) of very obvious, basic, contract 101 principals.

Then retarded WHITE _MALE_ pieces of shit GOLEMS like your self say NUUUHUHHHH U WROOONNNGGG for months.

Not once coming up with a valid legal counter argument.

Then a WHITE WUUUMMANN posts a _bullshit_ -zero-statement- infinitely couched remark. You all believe what you think it says because you cannot parse even English correctly.

Later the male lawyers from RedHat tacitly admit that I'm correct on the law.


 No.1052026

>>1051774

>You are a disinfo agent

<"Illusary contracts are enforcable!!!' -- White Male woman worshiper who hates muslims because they have child brides

>like the flat earthers but your job is not to distract truthers but to distract programmers so we don't create decentralized facebook and secure privacy-respecting browsers.

<decentralized facebook

<decentralized facebook

<decentralized facebook

This is what the white male, who worships the white WUUUMAN, and hates muslims because they have child bride wants, a _decentralized_ social network mapping tool!

>secure privacy-respecting browsers.

We had that. Before women came to opensource.


 No.1052027

Remeber everyone:

Illusory contracts are unenforceable.

Gratis licenses are revocable.

The GPL _CAN_ be "taken back" by the OWNER.

It is a permission, and if you didn't pay, you don't own ANYTHING.


 No.1052040

Tbh mikeeusa did nothing wrong. If there were more people so autistically pushing their line the cocs and wahmen could be easily removed from software.


 No.1052051

>>1052040

>mikeeusa did nothing wrong

Just take a quick glance at his "code". Pure cs grad meme material.


 No.1052052

>>1052051

Lmao who gives a fuck you autist, he's still doing more than anyone to fight the cancer


 No.1052065


 No.1052087

>>1052051

Not a CS grad.

Law grad.

Also work on 3d games now.

However GPC-Slots2 was a much better legal analogue so used that.


 No.1052089

>>1052087

<And by work, means: create what I want to have, myself, using my lifetime, for free and open.

<Not the wageslave "do what other people tell to so can get paper to gib to wuman" definition of "work"


 No.1052228

>>1052040

>>1052052

>still samefagging


 No.1055584

I just want to point out that when you buy a commercial license for software typically it will contain a section regarding revocation of the license.

The company my revoke your paid license under those terms.

If they choose to revoke but those paid-for terms and conditions are not met you may then sue for breach of contract.

However if the same company gifts you a license, they can revoke regardless of the terms to no penalty.

If you purchase a GPL-v3 license from a vendor, the no-revocation clause is operative, if the vendor then revokes you may sue for breach of contract.

However if you are a cheap piece of shit and choose to go with "free" beer appoach, the GPL-v3 no-revocation clause is not operable and you do not have a breach of contract recovery.

That is: the guys who buy RMS's magnetic tapes of Emacs get the benefit of the no-revocation clause. The guys that download it off wherever do not.


 No.1055585

>>1055254

Whites are slaves to "MUH WHITE WUUUUMAN" and recoil at the sight of cuteness.


 No.1055587

>>1055584

And no, if you buy a license from 3rd party, for RMS's emacs, with RMS not involved, you cannot recover under breach of contract if RMS revokes your license.


 No.1055588

>>1052228

Nope.

>>1052040

>>1052052

Thanks. Keep the fight alive and spread the Truth.


 No.1055589

>>1055587

(atleast against RMS)


 No.1055590

I just want to point out that when you buy a commercial license for software typically it will contain a section regarding revocation of the license.

The company my revoke your paid license under those terms.

If they choose to revoke but those paid-for terms and conditions are not met you may then sue for breach of contract.

However if the same company gifts you a license, they can revoke regardless of the terms to no penalty.

If you purchase a GPL-v3 license from a vendor, the no-revocation clause is operative, if the vendor then revokes you may sue for breach of contract.

However if you are a cheap piece of shit and choose to go with "free" beer appoach, the GPL-v3 no-revocation clause is not operable and you do not have a breach of contract recovery.

That is: the guys who buy RMS's magnetic tapes of Emacs get the benefit of the no-revocation clause. The guys that download it off wherever do not.


 No.1056091

Kike mods are trying to get TOR banned. Don't let them get away with it!


 No.1056611

LOL, I wish I thought of doing that!


 No.1056910

Where are all these shills coming from?


 No.1057648

This is a good thing.


 No.1058448

>>1055590

>I just want to point out that when you buy a commercial license for software typically it will contain a section regarding revocation of the license.

You can wipe your ass with those conditions as they are illegal (at least in every jurisdiction that has consumer protection laws).


 No.1058551

>>1058448

Nope, you are wrong.

It's very hit-and-miss.

_very_ hit and miss.

Some jurisdictions rule that if you paid for the software you "own" the copy like you might own any other thing you purchased (but ofcourse not distribution rights etc). Others play close to the terms. Others ask "what was the power imbalance between the parties to the contract" etc.

It's really a patchwork.

But the fundamental issue is : you paid for these terms, or this consumer good - therefor it can't be removed outside of those terms.

It wasn't always the case, and isn't always the case when it comes to two commercial / non-consumer entities. In the consumer realm the license is treated abit more like a good than simply an agreement. When dealing with learned entities it's treated like a contract.

Now with no outlay of monies, it's just permission either way. An exchange is fundamental to enforcement on the taker's side.

If they didn't give anything. They do not get anything.

Complain all you want.

Consumer protections are for those who have purchased a good or service, not for freeloaders. Contractual protections are for those who have purchased terms, not for freeloaders.


 No.1058554

>>1056611

>LOL, I wish I thought of doing that!

Doing what?

>are trying to get TOR banned. Don't let them get away with it!

Notice how they have verification now. To discourage discussion specifically of this. They have no counter to the arguments here because it is correct, and more people are starting to understand that.

Not even RedHat could handwave it away in their latest press release.

That's because I'm right (hint: I'm a licensed attorney, no matter how much woman worshipers want to claim otherwise (or conversely threaten to get me disbarred))


 No.1059546

GPL.

Ideas are worth everything and nothing

To whom nothing is given; nothing is gained

Will without ability has a future. Ability without will: not even a dream


 No.1059563

>>1059546

Nice poem!




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / ameta / choroy / d / dempart / general / jenny / miku / monarchy ]