Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Support us on Patreon!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 276 KB, 800x415, Serial-Experiments-Lain-Restore-04.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460068 No.69460068 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

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

>> No.69460117

>>69460068
>GPL can be revoked
No, it can't.

>MikeeUSA
Oh, that explains why we keep seeing these threads. This guy should not be allowed to use a computer.

>> No.69460153

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

>> No.69460179
File: 311 KB, 639x480, lainbear.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460179

>>69460117
>No, it can't.
http://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

>> No.69460195
File: 164 KB, 500x800, lain2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460195

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.69460206

>>69460117
>No, it can't.
Yes it can.

A license without an attached interest is revocable at will by the owner.

What did you pay the owners of the various GPL'd works you use? Nothing? Then you have nothing to bind them to 'your' 'terms'; for they are NOT your terms: they are the author's instructions as to how YOU MAY use HIS property.

>> No.69460209

>>69460179
>>69460195
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/MikeeUSA

Mikhail Kvaratskhelia is what constitutional lawyers sometimes call a werewolf – the most unappealing possible victim. He is a creepy, repellent, misogynistic crank, given to uttering threats of violent death against female Linux hackers, and quite possibly clinically insane. I first became aware of his existence last week when he sent a long letter of complaint to Richard Stallman, Linus, Bruce Perens, and myself asserting that his speech rights had been trampled on and linking to blog entries by Ms. Eicher and one other person. The letter was disturbing – intelligent in a feral way, but unhinged.

I was eyeball-deep in a new coding project; I read both blog posts, finding the story therein sad and troubling. Kvaratskhelia had posted level maps for a first-person-shooter game called Nexuiz on SourceForge; possibly also executable code, the accounts are unclear. The accounts concur that the maps contained violent imagery and slogans attacking women’s rights, and this creep’s ugly and hate-filled letter leaves me in no doubt that the maps were ugly and hate-filled as well.

I did not pursue the matter until RMS replied on 15 October asking whether Kvaratskhelia had made backups of the censored material. I thought this was a sensible question; it was the first one that had occurred to me, anyway. Following this, I searched the web for relevant material (I had deleted Kvaratskhelia’s letter rather quickly – my eyeballs felt soiled by it) and found Ms. Eicher’s original blog entry. I felt, at that point, the pricking of my conscience for not having responded to Kvaratskhelia’s earlier complaint immediately. I wrote Ms. Eicher an email condemning the suppression of speech and expressing my judgment that she owed Kvaratskhelia an apology for her suppressive conduct – which she refused to do.

>> No.69460211
File: 76 KB, 400x486, press.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460211

>>69460179
This isn't the free as in freedom people telling us that our license for freedom can be revoked at any time, is it?

Oh right, (((Rosen))).

>> No.69460242

who cares about this dying license.

>> No.69460248

>>69460211
The free as in freedom people say they own your code and can kick you out and hand it all over to women, and then sue you as a "thank you".

However under US law, a license without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor at will.

Just as you can lend your lawnmower for nothing, and then demand it back, the same goes for code that you own and have lent (licensed) for nothing.

>> No.69460249

>>69460206
That is not true in any jurisdiction I am aware of.

Mike I believe in you. Someday you will feel the soft touch of a woman and get laid, but not like this. Try going outside.

>> No.69460253

>>69460117
GPL v2 can be revoked, v3 can't be because of the new clauses from what I've heard/understood

>> No.69460260

BSD also suffers from this "defect" but the (Open)BSD hackers do not care about law since they are hackers.

Linux used to be the same. Then women arrived.

>> No.69460267
File: 71 KB, 1280x720, taco.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460267

>>69460248
Ah. Thanks anon.

>> No.69460309

>>69460253
>GPL v2 can be revoked, v3 can't be because of the new clauses from what I've heard/understood

Even with the GPLv3's "no revocation by grantor" clause, the owner can still, by law, revoke the license at any time.

The reason is because you did not pay for that clause to be in effect. You did not give anything up, to him, in exchange. He cannot be held to the "terms" by law because the "terms" are not backed on your side by anything.

Their only recourse is to beg the court, under equity, not law, to not enforce the owners lawful rights ("please it's not fair") (equitable estopple, and it's son: promissory estopple).

Such things are usually used when the owner made a promise knowing you'd go out and spend money based on that promise. They personally know you and are leading you on etc.

>> No.69460325

>>69460249
>That is not true in any jurisdiction I am aware of.
You must not be aware of the USA.

Ask yourself: what did I pay to buy these licensing terms. If you have no answer: sorry there are no "terms": just bare permission from the owner.

Which he can end at any time.

>> No.69460364

>>69460325
I live in the USA and as a lawyer, I can assure you, you're wrong. Just let it go Mike, like I said, there are better ways to get your cock sucked.

>> No.69460395

Remeber: when the other side starts talking about equitable estopple etc that means they have no legal argument.

When your land lord throws you out on the street for non-payment of rent, you are going to be arguing equitable estopple and promessory estopple (ie: more equitable estopple). It's not a defense in law, but in equity.

The court might give you another month or two to pack your things. If you throw in "FUCK WHY PEOPLE", then your equitable defense increases slightly in the DC courts. If you are a woman, even moreso, but if the landlord is a woman... sorry.

>> No.69460419

>>69460364
Proove me wrong then.

I too, am a lawyer in the USA.
The law is that a bare license is revocable.

The GPL, with respects to Linux, is just such a thing. In other cases (FSF, etc) the programmers assigned over their copyrights (just for this reason). Not so with Linux and other projects.

The GPL is not a transfer. It is a non-exclusive bare license. It can be revoked.

Lawrence Rosen, in his book, is correct.

>> No.69460453

Would they even sue you if you're the sole developer of a project and decide you are now close sourcing your project. And how do you sue someone if they are an anonymous person on the internet.

>> No.69460494

How about someone bring this shit to court and then we would all know for sure?

>> No.69460526
File: 161 KB, 762x900, Laughing Whore.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460526

FREETARDS BTFO.

Best part?
Not a single freetard with their imaginary law school hat has made a valid argument.

>> No.69460534

If GPL states it can be revoked - it can be revoked.

If law states it can ve revoked - it can be revoked.

You can even pirate GPL covered code. Just copy it without allowance of owner of the copy licensed to him.

GPL is a license and is covered by regulations of llegal system as well.

>> No.69460554

>>69460068
>The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.

>text-mode casino game
This obviously isn't kernel code, so why was it spammed on the kernel mailing list? I suspect the author (and OP) is a schizophrenic.

>> No.69460614

>>69460419
Mike, you own no kernel code for which you could revoke a license. Nobody uses any code you've ever written. Nobody has ever heard of "GPC-Slots 2", let alone played it.

Stop schizoposting.

>> No.69460638
File: 59 KB, 300x418, 01071.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460638

What "no revoke"ers like to cite is a recent case regarding some printer drivers.

The facts of that case are;
"company" makes printer drivers for linux for some reason (no one knows or asks why).

"company" presents an offer to do business on it's website: you may either: pay for a commercial license OR follow the GPL.

Zaibatsu comes across this offer and laughs. For years the Zaibatsu laughs. Some time later the satanic Zaibatsu decideds to make use of these "printer drivers", however being a Zaibatsu, knows that "law" is just a formality it does not need to extend to worthless gajin.

Zaibatsu neither pays for a commercial license NOR does it follow the GPL! hahhahahahHAHAHHAAHHHHhahahhahAAHAHHAAHHA FUCK GAIJIN

(note: Zaibatsu may not be, on it's face, nipponease, but we all know that all successful south-east asian organizations are controlled by the shadow hand in Kyoto)

"company" becomes aware of Zaibatsu's dealings, probably because Zaibatsu informed "company" purely to vex the baka gajin why piggus.

"company" becomes vexed, indeed. "company" sues Zaibatsu.

Zaibatsu says it does not have to obey "company" because there was no K (contract).

California judge decided "company" may collect damages equal to what the commercial license cost, or seek copyright damages.

Here the preliminary writing is where the contract language exists ("pay us or follow the GPL"), the Zaibatsu has no lawful right to use the printer drivers absent permission from "company". It can gain permission by following the permission given by "company" in the form of the GPL: if it violates that it has violated "company"'s copyright (and is liable for copyright damages), Alternatively Zaibatsu may pay for a Commercial license contract, and thus gain permission that way.

"No Recinders" claim that this "proves" the GPL is a K (contract) and not a bare license, they are incorrect. The GPL was an alternative to the commercial contract, that is why copyright damages were available.

>> No.69460673
File: 871 KB, 923x4678, Screenshot_2019-01-21 LKML GPL Revocation (GPC-Slots2) Alex “Skud” Bayley, Leigh Honeywell Hacker News.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460673

Get a load of this.

OP created this thread on HN yesterday and has been spamming the same schizo word salad there. He even created a new account an hour ago to post in that thread, even though the thread has been flagged and dead since yesterday.

Needless to say this is not rational behavior. OP is mentally ill.

>> No.69460702

>>69460638
It's hilarious that you write walls of schizo text about revoking GPL licensed code. You spend more time writing these walls of text than you ever have writing worthwhile code, therefore you own no worthwhile code and have nothing worth revoking, making the entire matter of revoking licenses to code completely irrelevant to your life.

That's humorous.

>> No.69460705
File: 5 KB, 329x141, z.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460705

>>69460638

Zaibatsu settles with GPL printer-driver "company" out of court. No one knows what the """"""settlement"""""" entailed: probably the Zaibatsu allowed the white piggus to live. Very fair.

The case, which didn't go any further, proved that you can try to enforce a K ("pay us for commercial copyright license contract") OR try to enforce the GPL as a copyright license (maybe get statutory damages).

IE: It doesn't do what the "no rescind"ers think it did. It strengthened the notion that the only thing that allows Z to use the code IS the permission (license) given, unless you come to an actual agreement (a K, give $$), it seemed like the court was going to allow the "company" to proceed either way, on either theory (Breach of contract for the K (give us money for commercial license) or violation of Copyright for not abiding by the GPL terms -- damages which usually are only available IN bare copyright licenses (with commercial licenses, a breach just gets you contract damages))

>> No.69460718
File: 295 KB, 640x479, gpc-slots 2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460718

Here is a screenshot of MikeeUSA's shitty "casino game" that nobody has ever heard of before.

Mike honestly believes this software is significant enough to spam the LKML about.

>> No.69460764
File: 152 KB, 924x683, 1487621074420.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460764

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

OP(MikeeUSA) is to open source what 'sovereign citizens' are to traffic stops.

>> No.69460788
File: 244 KB, 1200x800, LainAt20_Getty_PioneerLDC_Ringer.0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460788

>>69460702
If you were a lawyer you would have no problem with walls of text, since you would be reading cases every day.

>>69460673
They deleted it because of a lack of desire to see that their whole edifice is, legally in the USA, built on a foundation of sand.

Why do you think the FSF has always required copyright assignment...

>> No.69460794

>>69460764
No counter arguments, just call me names.

You haven't addressed Rosen's opinion, nor the good professors.

>http://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

>> No.69460808
File: 261 KB, 448x395, smug.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460808

>>69460788
Why are you continuing to post in a thread that got deleted yesterday? Why do you spam copy-past word salad around the internet, convinced that your opinion matters?

Because you are an unhinged schizophrenic.

>> No.69460837
File: 129 KB, 1366x768, 60229_serial_experiments_lain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460837

>>69460718
>Mike honestly believes this software is significant enough to spam the LKML about.

What is significant enough is that the GPL is revokable absent an attached interest.

One avenue of argument you all have been using is "well no one has ever done it" (False Author of ATSC Capture and Edit Tool did revoke and the distros did quietly remove his software rather than face potentiall litigation).

Well here it is. A revocation, including words supporting the ability.

And if the little game can revoke, so can the Linux gratis kernel programmers who are being treated as employees (read: CoC'd by do-nothing women (story of the west))

>spam
And it's not a commercial solicitation...

>> No.69460842
File: 525 KB, 768x1124, 1525695919649.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460842

Use the Apache License, version 2.0.

>> No.69460844

>>69460209
Imagine how assblasted was the tranny who wrote this.

>> No.69460848
File: 23 KB, 517x292, problem?.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460848

>>69460837
You have never written software worth revoking, because you're a schizophrenic.

>> No.69460851

>>69460808
Because I am a lawyer, I have read up on the issue, and I know I'm right.

That "word salad"

>>69460309
>>69460325

are some quick arguments from other lawyers because you will not read my long expositions on the law.

>> No.69460866

https://openload.pw/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4

>> No.69460886

The GPL is a copyleft virus. Its nature replaces remittance to the author with use and further transmission of the virus.
The interest is inherent.

>> No.69460895
File: 26 KB, 340x325, post-muscle-guy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460895

one copy of MIT license, please.

>> No.69460896

>>69460206
It has always been a faith based contract. Why would people think otherwise?
It was meant to be people providing use to others out of their own prerogative, whether that be kindness or because there's deeply embedded malware in it.

>> No.69460905

>>69460895
>steroid-addled micropenis
average MIT license user.Give me Apache or give me nothing at all.

>> No.69460909

>>69460248
But you can also modify that mower to the point where it's not even recognisable as the grantor's product.

>> No.69460926

>>69460526
I'd go further and say that it has intrinsic problems as much as normal licensing.
Hence BOTH insufficiently provide for the people's natural rights.

Both situations enforced a degree of bondage.

>> No.69460929
File: 1.73 MB, 500x352, lain222.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460929

>>69460866
For those who do not like to read.

See this book here:
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

That is where these >>69460179 >>69460195 quotes are from.

I supply them because you will simply not believe what I say. I am a licensed attorney, I have studied this subject in-depth. The GPL is revocable by the gratis linux contributors.

This applies to other GPL'd software aswell where there is no attached interest. They are simply grants of permission, a lending of a piece of property. It can be revoked at will by the owner.

>> No.69460932
File: 26 KB, 600x450, 1532469406591.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460932

>>69460788
>If you were a lawyer you would have no problem with walls of text, since you would be reading cases every day.
You have no idea how bad things are.

>> No.69460940

>>69460851
>Because I am a lawyer,
You're a schizophrenic, not a lawyer.

>> No.69460967

>>69460851
>I am a lawyer
What happens, by law, if a person finds a snail in the beverage they just purchased?

>> No.69460974
File: 77 KB, 500x513, ill-spout-simplistic-opinions-for-hours-on-end-ridicule-anyone-34009448.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460974

Fucking kek thread that's why i browse reddit.

>> No.69460979
File: 12 KB, 186x271, lin4323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69460979

>>69460909
Here you are bringing up the functional vs expression issue regarding copyrights on programs.

We think of many programs as purely functional, but the courts seem to disagree often. The only time one seems to surely win on a functional argument is if there's only one proper way to write a particular expression of a programming idea.

Oracle v Google makes this even harder. (interface declarations are not purely functional??!)

If a linux gratis programmer was to revoke, and he can revoke, the argument ("we'll just reimplement the code he took out") engenders years of litigation to determine weather this new code is derivative of the old linux coder's work.

>> No.69460986

Why is this on LKML?
I am Confucius.

>> No.69461016

>>69460851
god you are such a useless faggot. Maybe we should out your sorry ass as a 4chan shitposter? If you're really a lawyer you would have more important things to do than shitpost on /g/. I guess what that means is that you're a shit lawyer who can't find any clients so you just pick on trannies who say mean things about you and make you question your sexuality. Here's a hint faggot- you guzzle far too much cum to ever be heterosexual. You're the natural bottom, the submissive, the cockslut, you crave to be filled by faggot cock. Embrace it you whore. Because you're a shit lawyer and would make a lot more money on the street corner than you will arguing with hobo GPL devs

>> No.69461049

Even ERS is tired of your shit

>> No.69461063

>>69460967
>What happens, by law, if a person finds a snail in the beverage they just purchased?

If in a canned beverage: Sounds like a manufacturing defect. Sue the soda company. And the vendor company.

If at a restaurant: probably a violation of local health regulations, but this is jurisdictional. Is the snail raw or cooked?

But is it a large chain... perhaps they are violating some federal guidelines... but then they will probably be a franchise and the head office will say it's not involved at the local level...

Not sure what the damages would be: what can a snail do? Unless it's a very hot snail and it burns away your innards on the way down. Though it could be covered in bacteria...

Perhaps you get sick... and sue for lost wages for being out of work for the sickness... the snail being a but-for cause of your misfortune... the cause of the snail being the gross negligence of the bottling company (or restaurant).

More information is needed on the state of the snail'd victim.

>> No.69461077

>>69461016
Why do you think I don't show you proof?
Because you'll try to disbar me.

>> No.69461102

>>69461049
>Even ERS is tired of your shit
It's ESR. Sadly, like any lay-person, it seems that he seems to think the issue is settled just because no one took any action in the 2 months since the CoC.

Your ownership of your code doesn't evaporate just because you didn't take legal action immediately...

But this is what you lay-people try to tell all the programmers who could and can rescind.

>> No.69461107
File: 2.56 MB, 200x150, 1510403481499.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461107

GPL can dance.
your move.

>> No.69461115
File: 1.00 MB, 512x512, serial_experiments_lain_folder_icon_by_dumpy100-dbv0md4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461115

>>69461016
What is working going to get me?
Tell me? Tell me what working would get me.
Everything I want has been banned by CoC sucking white men and "their" women.

So I code quakeC, and enlighten you as to the law.

It vexes you.

>> No.69461133

>>69460325
>>69460419
>>69461077
We will keep archiving these threads and eventually we will have proof. Hopefully a mod will oust you via IP logs or something of the like in a few weeks. Sage in all fields btw, I'm not contributing to your little circlejerk. You just need a nice big black cock in your face.

>> No.69461148

>>69461115
Get off my /g/ you faggot

>> No.69461151
File: 761 KB, 500x357, Bh1Y.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461151

Please don't let this thread die.

Notice how the "anti recind"ers have no arguments.
I've refuted them all.
Then they complain that the refutations have "too many words"

Spread the word to your linux contributing friends that they can recind, and that they should as a united front.

>> No.69461171
File: 28 KB, 233x311, 1547844989175.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461171

>>69461133
why are you so mad at the guy? either prove that he's wrong, or accept that he has a point. it's not hard.

>> No.69461174

>>69461151
>>69460886

>> No.69461183
File: 35 KB, 600x600, 1516716981410.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461183

>>69461063
The answer is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donoghue_v_Stevenson
The English common law equivalent of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.

You might be forgiven if not a commonwealth anon, but the equivalent must be brought up in US law schools by now considering we do the same in my country with some US precedent now (with skepticism because holy fuck US, your cases are wack).

>> No.69461196
File: 114 KB, 428x550, pp,550x550.u2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461196

>>69461133
>We will keep archiving these threads and eventually we will have proof. Hopefully a mod will oust you via IP logs or something of the like in a few weeks. Sage in all fields btw, I'm not contributing to your little circlejerk. You just need a nice big black cock in your face.

I really don't care. I have nothing to lose, because I have nothing to gain.

I am correct on the law.
A license, absent an attached interest, is revocable by the owner of the property. It is simply permission to use. Not a transfer of rights.

I know that makes you mad, that the GPL can be rescinded by the gratis contributors.

I know that being anti-womens rights and being pro-YHWH is a violation of ethics (like in every profession) and you will use that against me if you can.

I know I vex you.

But you give me no reason to care. I hate the society you have built.

>> No.69461231

>>69461171
Its like arguing with Terry. People proved him wrong multiple times

>> No.69461369

>>69461133
If sage were in all fields you lying trolling mongoloid, then your name would not be anonymous. Faggot.

>> No.69461398
File: 83 KB, 159x143, 1547059968295.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461398

>>69461231
well, i didn't see the other threads, and in this thread there's nothing... i find this subject very interesting, and as for now i'm inclined to the lainposter, seeing that everyone is only namecalling him.

>> No.69461441

>>69461398
OP is MikeeUSA, a known schizophrenic and pedophile. Posting pictures of lain doesn't make him right.

>> No.69461442

>>69461398
I understand. I am too lazy but he was active on linux mailing list, few threads on lainchan and here, on /g/
8ch/tech is great idea to look too

>> No.69461542

>>69461441
i find ironic that you tie his arguments to his person on an anonymous imageboard

>>69461442
i see. well, i admit that i'm a bit lazy too, i would just like to have a general idea of why he's wrong, why his argument doesn't hold water. i would be very disappointed if, by looking at those threads, i only find the same walls of text everywhere.

>> No.69461543
File: 639 KB, 500x357, 1529261033107_.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69461543

>>69461441
>Posting pictures of lain doesn't make him right.
But Lain is love. Lain is life.
Are you saying he is perverting the lain?

>> No.69461560

>>69461231
>Its like arguing with Terry. People proved him wrong multiple times
Thou shall not slander the lord and saviour's name.

>> No.69461577

>>69461542
>>i find ironic that you tie his arguments to his person on an anonymous imageboard
Google the software in the OP link: GPC-Slots 2

You'll find that it comes from MikeeUSA aka Mikhail Kvaratskhelia, who is known for being mentally unstable. OP is also mentally unstable, as plenty of people have shown already in this thread. There is no sense denying that OP is MikeeUSA.

>> No.69461717

>>69461577
it's not like i don't believe you, i simply don't care. as i said, i find ironic that the identity of someone matters on an anonymous imageboard.

>> No.69461751

>>69461717
I don't think you understand what irony is, or how 4chan works.

On 4chan you're only as anonymous as you choose to be. OP is not anonymous, because he's made it abundantly clear who he is.

>> No.69461805

>>69461751
well, whatever floats your boat. i still don't think his identity matters, at all.

>> No.69461817

>>69461805
The fact that he's a known mentally ill lolcow should matter to you, if you have any sense.

>> No.69461856

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.

>guarantee
>make sure
>forbid anyone to deny you these rights or ask you to surrender the rights

To replace the license after legally offering guarantees would be fraud.

>> No.69461859

>>69461717
It matters when someone steps "out of the line". Schizos are prone to this cause of their weird way of speaking. Normal anons? Not so much cause they dont try to makr their speech unique.
Its not that imageboards are anonymous. They arent. People are very curious of other anon's identity.

>> No.69461945

>>69460206
>>69460248
>>69460309
>without an attached interest
It's very rarely that simple with GPL software. You write code and you release it under the GPL and you never accept anyone's changes or contributions ever.. then perhaps you can claim nobody has an attached interest. However, if you release your GPL software and I start using it and I find bug and submit bug fixes and you add them and make new versions with more bugs and I submit some bug fixes and some code for new features too and five years later you decide you want to revoke your GPL.. can you really claim I have no vested interest?

>>69460718
>shitty "casino game" that nobody has ever heard of before
Well, they have now. I guess this isn't a too bad way of marketing your shitty game.

>> No.69462020

>>69461856
An unfulfillable contract would be discharged through frustration or various other contract law reasons that would render it void.

>> No.69462090

>>69462020
You're ignoring the initial guarantees which render the license irrevocable in the first place.
Assuming revocation is begging the question.

>> No.69462117

God i hope you're right
FUCK the GPL

>> No.69462126
File: 96 KB, 1024x768, Serial_Experiments_Lain_06.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69462126

Three simple words send squatters into a frothing rage
>GPL is revocable

>> No.69462132

>>69461859
>normal anons
uhh where do you think you are

>> No.69462178

>>69462117
(he's not)

>> No.69462180

Ofcourse the GPL is revocable
It's not something new either, see
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7623095
I've made threads in the past about how my compamy uses GPL'd code all the time (in the US), and they just don't give a shit because the guy who wrote said code under the GPL works in our company and if we got "caught", he could always revoke the license

>> No.69462291

>>69462090
>You're ignoring the initial guarantees which render the license irrevocable
How can you guarantee something without a contractual term or a statutory guarantee?
And with regards to statutory guarantees, you usually can't make a contract that excludes them.

So basically, revocation is completely possible and the contract itself is void. The issue becomes misrepresentation I think.
Have there been any cases involving the GPL? I need a refresher... but it sounds like it cannot be enforceable.

>> No.69462307

>>69462180
I've always thought it was a faith thing and that the people using it were risking misrepresenting themselves by inferring it's enforceability.

>> No.69462320

>>69460117
Yes it can, and your attempts at character assassination throughout this thread is libelous. If this person is who you say you should seek legal counsel, an order for your IP address isn't that difficult to acquire. I seriously doubt any action has been taken.

>> No.69462333

>>69462291
The terms of the license itself are a claim of binding on the issuer.

>> No.69462341

>>69462307
It's been mentioned in countless threads throughout years that the GPL is FUD and everyone knows it barely applies to ie China, India, whatever
I cannot fathom how delusional GPL fans can be to ignore that only the people supporting the GPL actually respect the GPL

>> No.69462350

>>69462333
That's literally what is rebutted in the OP and in various other posts

>> No.69462371

>>69462350
Not said anywhere that the GPL itself is a warranty against its revocation.

>> No.69462375

>>69460249
this

>> No.69462376

Kek so many assblasted trannys insisting that they btfo based nutjob poster. I followed this thread and the last one and their arguments are
>He is wrong and its not my job to explain why.
It seems pretty clear that even if jis program is worthless people are terrified that he is right and are attacking him instead of his arguments to shut him up.

>> No.69462402

>>69462376
The virginity emanating from your post is tangible.

>> No.69462426

>>69462376
Well duh, look at
>>69460249
>>69460117
>>69460211
>>69460253
>>69460364
>>69460673
>>69460718
>>69460764
Its all
>I didnt hear of this extremely specific legal part that hasn't apparently been used in court (at least in any famous case), so its not wrong
And ofcourse personal attacks

>> No.69462438

>>69462402
Good job proving his point, brainlet

>> No.69462450

>>69462438
You two should get together and jerk each other off.

>> No.69462456

>>69462341
>the GPL is FUD and everyone knows it barely applies to ie China, India,
You don't understand what "FUD" means.

>> No.69462462

>>69462402
The down syndrome emanating from your post has its own zip code.

>> No.69462468

>>69462402
If only you actually had an argument you would be able to post something other than personal attacks.
No contact without consideration is business law 101. They teach this shit to freshmen.

>> No.69462471
File: 157 KB, 640x480, lain_8_640.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69462471

>>69462090
>You're ignoring the initial guarantees which render the license irrevocable in the first place.

There are no assurance, in the GPLv2 what-so-ever. (And you didn't pay for them.)

>However, if you release your GPL software and I start using it and I find bug and submit bug fixes and you add them and make new versions with more bugs and I submit some bug fixes and some code for new features too and five years later you decide you want to revoke your GPL.. can you really claim I have no vested interest?

You paid X nothing for X code's. X allowed you to create derivative works. You have no right to do so without X's permission. Creating the derivative work is a benefit X allowed you gratuitously. You using the software is an allowance by him

However bugfixes are trivial and are probably quantum nullus/de minimis aswell as being purely functional code. I doubt you could even claim separate copyright on the bugfixes

For other additions, you could simply revoke permission to use your additional work that was added to the ball of derivative works..

You might beg the court, under equity, to allow you to continue using Y version of software, and even to continue to modify Y version for your own needs. The court might feel pitty upon you because you vainly fixed some bugs (a drop in the ocean of an ever expanding sea) in X's property

However, that would not extend to being able to release said code. The permission to distribute derivative works has been revoked by the grantor

This is like one saying
>"F freely lent T lawnmower, F said 'don't put flames on lawnmower'", T then used the lawnmower in T's lawn-mowing business and changed the throttle on it. Later T makes demands of F or else T will kick him out of the LM Ass. (an association F partly founded). F then revokes T's license to use the lawnmower, says "get your own lawnmower". T then complains she needs F's lawnmower for her business and has changed the throttle on it: thus F can't have it back.""

>> No.69462480

ITT: MikeeUSA talks to himself

>> No.69462489

>>69460068
>This site can’t provide a secure connection
>lkml.org uses an unsupported protocol.
>ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH

wowit'sfuckingnothing

>> No.69462493

>>69460068
Explains why companies pay for separate licenses instead of using gpl code for free. Makes me wonder if google is using gpl code that could be revoked. You could cripple them temporarily or get paid if they are using your code, *rubs hands*.

>> No.69462505

nobody cares if the supertuxcart maintainers pull out. In fact the world would be a much better place without free software litter

>> No.69462580
File: 791 KB, 588x679, 1537652985958.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69462580

>>69460794
>>69460851
>>69461196
>some retard thinks he can sway sites like 4chan to listen to him
Fucking christ I want off this train, please fuck off and never return, you are way too fucking stupid to own a computer, destroy yours now.

>> No.69462606

>>69460117
That retard shits up 8/v/ every time his shitty mod gets an update

>> No.69462624

Some anti-"recinders" like to claim that a certain clause in the GPL2 is a "irrevocable by grantor" clause. Ignoring the fact that you did not pay anything to "buy" that clause.

Section 0 of the GPL2 defines "you" as the licensees (not the grantor).

Section 4 of the GPL2 simply explains that if a licensee suffers an automatic revocation of the license (by violating it, according to the GPL2) that the licensee's """"sub""""-licensees do not also suffer an automatic revocation in-turn.

This is not a "no revocation by grantor" clause. This is a "a broken link does not destroy the chain" clause. Later it is further clarified that all licensees gain their licenses from the Copyright owner (not other licensees: GPL2 is not sub-licensable according to itself).

However, either way, even with the GPLv3, you did not pay for the term, it cannot be used against the grantor under law. The most that can happen is that the court feels pity on licensee, one licensee (not all) that the grantor is revoking the license from. The court can, under equity, do more-or-less what it wants. Often you see this in landlord-tenant disputes. The court will, under equity, give the lessee another month or two or three. Equity is throwing yourself on the mercy of the court: "PLEASE IT IS NOT FAIR, I PAID HIM NOTHING, HE OWS ME THIS SOFTWARE, HE IS A ___MALE___, A SLAVE IN THE ANGLO SYSTEM!!!". A pretty good argument, often plays well. America does hate men.

>> No.69462645

>>69462493
>Explains why companies pay for separate licenses instead of using gpl code for free.

Correct

>> No.69462655

>>69462624
Get lost.

>> No.69462661

>>69460842
based ryuko poster

>> No.69462678

>>69462471
>There are no assurance, in the GPLv2 what-so-ever.
The entire thing is an assurance.

It is not a typical license which simply doles out permissions. It is a love letter to freetardism. It defines it, and then it purports that it guarantees it.
it does not merely give permission, it defines the state of permissibility as an irrevocable right. A court could easily find that that is binding on the author. And likely would due to the consequences of attempting to revoke a copyleft virus.

>> No.69462687
File: 52 KB, 1280x720, lain33.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69462687

>>69462489
http://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52

>> No.69462696

>>69462341
But a contract of faith might also be necessary for the free innovative development of software. It's a symbol, but a necessary one.

>> No.69462707

>>69462624
>Ignoring the fact that you did not pay anything to "buy" that clause.
It does not have to be bought since it was declared as a right, not mere permission.

>> No.69462721

>>69462678
Preambles are rarely taken into account by the courts.

It is a pure bare license. It asks nothing of the licensee and just says "Here is a list of the alienable rights under copyright, I'm generous today, you can use this property"

The licensees are under no obligation to give anything in return. And they don't.

>> No.69462752

>>69462707
Nope, it is not a transfer of a right, since it is a non-exclusive copyright license.
And you cannot "declare" a right in a US license.

>> No.69462773

>>69462333
So it's a mere representation and the only leverage a person relying on it has is through suing against a misrepresentation? No poor man relying on free software has the money to sue for that... unless it breaches US statutory law and is enforceable through a US government organisation?
Sounds like this "contract" is a mere representation of a quality of the product.

>> No.69462774

>>69462752
It repudiates copyright.

>> No.69462789

>>69462707
Yes, in the USA, you do have to "buy" the "right".
Without anything on your side you have no secured interest, it is simply permission freely given and can be revoked by the owner of the property.

What you can do is transfer all or part of your copyright to another entity (This is what the FSF demands btw) which swears never to revoke, and maybe it will abide by that oath.

But you cannot transfer your "rights" to "the world" absent a dedication to the Public Domain (which the GPL is not)

>> No.69462837

>>69461945
"Interest" means money you fucking retard. Of course somebody can take away something they gave you for free.

>> No.69462838

>>69462774
>It repudiates copyright.
Irrelevant.
It claims to. However the FSF cannot make law. So copyright still stands. And the GPL is a copyright license.

Some idiot lawyer on youtube claimed the "GPL isn't copyright, it's copyleft" lol

>> No.69462882

>>69462838
GPL isn't copyright, it's copyleft. That the courts have found the provisions binding to the users fall under copyright does not mean they will find that the owners have the full set of protections.

>> No.69462928

>>69462774
You cannot repudiate a contract that is already void to begin with.

>>69462624
> The court can, under equity, do more-or-less what it wants. Often you see this in landlord-tenant disputes.
This isn't "real property" though.
And bringing equity into this is a WHOLE new can of worms. Especially if you do shit the court doesn't like or you try to use it as a sword than a shield.

Fuck this thread is super deep on the law.

>> No.69462953

>>69462928
>You cannot repudiate a contract that is already void to begin with.
The GPL is found to be enforceable. It can be found to be enforceable on the author as well.

>> No.69463037

>>69462882
The GPL is a copyright license.
The Copyright Act allows a copyright holder to alienate his copyright in a variety of ways (transfering it in part or in whole (what the FSF demands of it's programmers)). It also recognises the rightsholder's ability to grant non-exclusive licenses. The GPL is one such non-exclusive license

"copyleft" does not exist in US law. It's a term of art of the FSF to group a certain type of liberal non-exclusive copyright license.

>> No.69463104

>>69460526
The issues invoked by the GPL are vague to be honest.

>> No.69463121

>>69462953
You cannot make a legal contact without consideration. Anybody can put anything they want in a contract, that does not make it legally enforceable without following the laws that govern contracts.

>> No.69463138

>>69462953
>The GPL is found to be enforceable.

>It can be found to be enforceable on the author as well.
Copyright license terms are enforceable on the grantor if those terms are supported on the takers side by some interest. That is if the taker has purchased those terms.

THAT is why commercial copyright license contracts are "enforced" on the grantor: because the taker suffered a detriment to purchase those terms.

Taker buys a license and in that license is a specific term regarding when a license is revoked. Because the taker paid the grantor for that term, the court holds both to that term. In that case the grantor, because the term was purchased from him, will not be permitted to reneg on the purchased term.

What was sold was not the software: it was the terms of use.

With the GPL there is no attached interest to bind the owner. He can allow, and then he can disallow. He has not transfered his property to you, even though you posses the code (see the end of the 200's section in the Copyright Act)

>> No.69463388

>>69462953
So it's not void of uncertainty?
>>69463121
>You cannot make a legal contact without consideration.
I'm pretty sure there were issues with that however. For example, consideration may be found in the form of providing work for that OS's development, which I guess is the reason why the GPL exists as a thing. They provide the initial product, you either use it with or without intention of developing it.

>> No.69463468
File: 39 KB, 665x574, 1546823763727.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69463468

Ah I get it now, so the GPL can only be revoked if no consideration is provided for it by the offeree.
Was there any modification to this product, directly or indirectly, by an "offeree" prior to the termination of this product?
If you can prove there was, then the offer could not be revoked.

>> No.69463903

>>69460929
GNU's ded

>> No.69463964

Can someone explain why feminists needed GPL licensed text-based casino game and why it's such a big deal?

>> No.69464026

>>69463903
It really is.
Revocability kills the GPL entirely as a functional legal contract. How can you rely on other GPL using software for your own future GPL using software if it can be revoked on a whim? You can't. As soon as it is revoked, bam, you breach copyright. It's almost a domino effect.

>> No.69464039

>>69463964
Because dog sees ball, dog fetches ball.
That's how feminist provocation is used by the elite to herd cattle.

>> No.69464063
File: 16 KB, 466x103, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69464063

>>69460068
lel

>> No.69464101

>GPL has no powe-
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/12/microsoft-finally-open-sources-windows-7-tool/

>> No.69464176

>>69464063
A lot of that is close to the reality of the law though.

Another issue regarding contract law and consideration comes from whether the promisee (the person agreeing to use the product) acts to their detriment (using the product) at the promisor's (GPL owner) request, as using the product seems to be both a detriment and a benefit to the promisee.

>> No.69464191

>>69464039
Sorry, but you'll have try again, without allegories this time. Whatever you just said leaves me with way too many interpretations of what has happened - which is why I asked my question in the first place.

>> No.69464233

Yeah yeah but when is someone going to revoke the license to include their code in the kernel so we get a test case in a court somewhere? What jurisdiction would this even be done in?

>> No.69464302

The GPL is not revocable. End this meme.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2006062204552163

>> No.69464308

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

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

Ah I see the issue.
Is the consideration "use of and/or development for the betterment of the code"? If they simply modify it for no real benefit to the functionality of the code, is it allowable under the license?
I totally agree with that train of thought, though it would likely create further issues.

The rest is bollocks.

>> No.69464343

>>69464191
>GPL owner sees someone who he doesn't like using his code meaninglessly
>brings GPL into disrepute
>that someone was paid by a proper proprietary company with paid licenses to do so
>therefore they eliminate competition

>> No.69464407

bump

>> No.69464427
File: 1.77 MB, 1200x1200, pcbhospitalanime.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69464427

Yeah yeah but when is someone going to revoke the license to include their code in the kernel so we get a test case in a court somewhere?

>> No.69464467

>>69464427
They won't, because they'll likely be murdered.

>> No.69464476 [DELETED] 

>>69460929
>>69464026
I'm gonna guess this is USA only?

The EU is usually more about the spirit of things. If the preamble says:
"Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things." and nothing says anything about revocation conditions, you likely just can't revoke the license.

>> No.69464499

>>69460929
>>69464026
I'm gonna guess this is USA only?

The EU and elsewhere is often if not usually more about the spirit of things. If the preamble says:
> Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
and nothing says anything about revocation conditions, you likely just can't revoke the license.

>> No.69464518

>>69464476
Commonwealth and US.
EU is barely a functional law system that even the people mistrust. Why do you think Britain left it? I'm telling you now it wasn't mere nationalist patriotism.

>> No.69464548

What is the point of revoking a GPL license? Everyone who receives a copy, also receives the same rights as the previous owner.

So if the author revokes the license from someone, can't that person just get the software from someone else?

>> No.69464559

>>69464518
I don't want to say the EU is amazing, but the legal system in EU member countries is overall more accessible [without being rich, that is] and more sane than the US one, if you ask me.

And the highest courts at the European / EU level also are rather decent.

>> No.69464605

>>69464559
>I don't want to say the EU is amazing, but the legal system in EU member countries is overall more accessible
It's literally inquisitional in places.
Guilty til proven innocent. How fair.

>> No.69464620

>>69464559
And the EU decisions I've read must have been made by monkeys.

>> No.69464685

Ts'o spoke. Trolls can fuck off.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/26/52

>> No.69464695

>>69464302
The GPL is revocable, PJ the paralegal didn't know what the fuck she was talking about.
http://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876

>> No.69464707

>>69464695
Linking the same book over and over again using a different IP every time won't make it true. Sorry.

>> No.69464727

>>69461196
>I hate the society you have built.
just kill yourself my man

>> No.69464767

>>69464302
The GPL is revocable. That old groklaw "article" was written by a paralegal "name" "PJ". The moment her real name was outed she stopped publishing (because she was wrong).

She confused the "rule" regarding commercial copyright license contracts (which is talked about in "Copyright Litigation Handbook" on westlaw: which is probably what she was basing her research on) with an overarching rule.

The whole reason commercial licenses are irrevocable outside of their terms is because you bought those terms.

PJ was like "LOL this is rediculous, no", when she did not know the basis of the law. She just knew to look up "Copyright" on westlaw, and read from there. The groklaw and the ZDNet article (which cites PJ again) are _bullshit_.

(Unless you think LAWWLL NO from some paralegal _woman_ is controlling law.)

Read Lawrence Rosen's book, or consult Prof David McGowan, or just consult a US attorney of your choice.
>>69460179
>>69460195

>> No.69464796

>>69464707
Linking your groklaw article by a PARALEGAL woman (and the ZDnet article that cites it) does not make your link any more true.

The book IS true.

I know why it is true because I have studied law. The fact of the matter is that if you want to hold someone to an "agreement" you have to give up money or a legal right that they have asked of you.

Them simply stating you can use their property for a time is NOT an agreement. It is a unilateral license. YOU CAN DO THIS.

Tomorrow it can be a unilateral revocation.

>> No.69464842

>>69464685
>Jacobsen vs. Katzer
That's a case about the Artistic License. The court held that it can be enforced as a copyright license. What is your point? Going to rely on non-binding dicta from the 9th circuit in the middle of the decision where they wax eloquently about OSS?

Hint: litigators might decide to seek personal jurisdiction elsewhere...

>> No.69464866

>>69464548
>What is the point of revoking a GPL license? Everyone who receives a copy, also receives the same rights as the previous owner.
The GPLv2 is not sub-licensable (according to itself). Each license comes from the owner, not other people. The GPLv2 tells you this itself.

>So if the author revokes the license from someone, can't that person just get the software from someone else?
Not if there is a blanket revocation, as with the old ATSC Capture and Edit Tool (which the distros quietly complied with)

>> No.69464904

>>69464343
Nope
>GPL owner sees someone who he doesn't like using his code meaninglessly
>Notices that people don't seem to understand the law
>Tries to educate them
>They say "no one has done it, therefore impossible"
>Revokes to show them it can be done.

>> No.69464948

>>69464233
>Yeah yeah but when is someone going to revoke the license to include their code in the kernel so we get a test case in a court somewhere? What jurisdiction would this even be done in?

It can be done in any jurisdiction one can get personal jurisdiction over a violator. In the case of Linux, and biz entities, that can be anywhere they do biz. So pick your circuit.

And avoid the 9th: they'll notice some the CoC is to help women and rule against the mmaallee linux hackers out of spite.

Also: 1) Do not tell violator before you take action (they can bring you to the court of their choice for a hearing on their "rights", if in question)
2) Do this all as a united front, with alot of code. You don't want to be going up against the other-side by yourself.

>> No.69464970

>>69463964
> Can someone explain why feminists needed GPL licensed text-based casino game and why it's such a big deal?

They typed into the text > something disparaging about women's rights.

The program displayed a screen agreeing with them.

>> No.69465040
File: 510 KB, 640x640, lain-844.png.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
69465040

>>69464176
Thoughts on the 8ch threads?

>> No.69465058

>>69462837
Time/work = money. Anyone contributing to code has invested money into it.

>> No.69465082

The owner of an IP can do whatever the fuck they want with it, whether software or intellectual.

>> No.69465129

>>69465082
So can anyone else.

>> No.69465148

>>69465129
Only the owner can revoke licenses like that. Owner has total control. A contributor can't revoke the license, but the owner sure the fuck can.

>> No.69465197

>>69465148
>he thinks intellectual property is private property once it's shared

>> No.69465248

Look at something like movies or music. The artists, whether it's shared on Spotify or some other streaming service or not, own full control (unless they contracted rights away). If they want to pull the music at anytime, well, you're fucked. Better hope you downloaded that film or album. They can charge whatever they want - one day it might be free, go to their e-store, it might be a wad of cash.

8/10 you got me

>> No.69465248,1 [INTERNAL] 

This is only half true.

I think his legal case is substantial, and told him so. What I'm tired of is the guy spamming threads on my blog that have nothing to do with licensing.

Life lesson: You can be right, and still sabotage yourself by sounding like a crank.

>> No.69465248,2 [INTERNAL] 

>jew yorker
>lawyer
DOTR soon OP

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action