Author Revokes GPL from "GeekFeminists"

Jow Forums what is your take on this? Is it relevant as the CoC'd linux programmers could do the same?
lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52
slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl

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The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.

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

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

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

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

Attached: tux.png (2000x2333, 955K)

Other urls found in this thread:

geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/
geekfeminism.org
geekfeminism.wikia.com
amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

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

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

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

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

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

>[1]geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/
>[2]geekfeminism.org
>[3]geekfeminism.wikia.com

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

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

Attached: lain-844.png.jpg (640x640, 510K)

Good.

Though switches are prettier.

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

why the fuck are they discussing the minutiae of performance (this will literally save you like 5 processor cycles) when this is a stupid slots game on 2019 hardware

>Though switches are prettier.
Using them with strings is not fast.
They were never ment to be used with strings.
Imagine the jump-table that would result from a naive approach and variable length strings...
Some lanugages have given in and compute a hash for the string "switch" statements, it's ugly under the hood. Others stay strong and only allow strings with integers etc.

So happening or nah

>why the fuck are they discussing the minutiae of performance (this will literally save you like 5 processor cycles) when this is a stupid slots game on 2019 hardware
The geek feminists are the ones who complained first.

Remeber: the if/thens vs switch is right after an input wait for string input. The geek feminists thought switch statements were better and mocked the use of if-thens.

It's really up to you.

Programmers think that the GPL is irrevocable. Lawyers try to tell them otherwise.

One solution to the "proud white women who do nothing, punish white bois who actually built the kernel" is to rescind the license for one's code.

They are punishing the white bois for slights and speech while the white bois are the one who own the copyright to the code.

It is like squatters moving into your house and then torturing you when you do not serve them.

Then saying "no you can't kick us out of the house either"

Attached: Serial_Experiments_Lain_06.jpg (1024x768, 96K)

True. But I guess when you develop enterprise shit in something like say, Java, that simply stops mattering.

But this seems like an old case. Pretty bad case of a group ganging up on some too.

Here is a dead Jow Forums thread on the issue: You people let it die...

Just like you won't educate the linux programmers. Just like none of the tech news sites will run the story and keep citing an erroneous report from the paralegal PJ from grok law.

Attached: lain222.gif (500x352, 1.73M)

>But this seems like an old case. Pretty bad case of a group ganging up on some too.

The GPL revocation happened just this last week, year 2019, month 0

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.

Attached: Bh1Y.gif (500x357, 761K)

Discussions with author of program involved:
(4+4ch) .net/tech/res/1013409.html
(4+4ch) .net/tech/res/1017824.html
(4+4ch) .net/tech/res/1018729.html
Where the law is discussed etc (yes the GPL is revocable)

The point is that if this little game can revoke, so can the gratis linux programmers. They never assigned over their copyrights, and they simply gave permission, for nothing.

This is a case of a bare license with no attached interest (you didn't "pay" for the thing, thus you cannot rely on the "terms")

It applys to the linux kernel aswell.

If the linux programmers wish to fight back against women ruling over them, they can rescind as a group.

Right now they are threatened with punishment eventhough they built the whole thing. They are threatened by white women. The same women who took from them every good right (such as marrying cute young girls etc).

White women are the mortal enemy of men.

Attached: lain.jpg (259x194, 8K)

Oh well, I wasted my time posting this here. For all your fury 2 months ago, you don't give a shit now.

FUCK you Jow Forums

Here is a dead Jow Forums thread on the issue:

Quite frankly I'm more lost after reading this thread than when I first noticed it

FUCK you Jow Forums

You want the CoC gone, you want cunts out of linux, you need to destroy the legal foundations of linux in the USA (it can continue elsewhere).

You get a band of old linux contributors to rescind, and you can do just that.

But you won't.

FUCK _ YOU

None of the news sites will take up this story because they know that if the legal foundations which the kernel sits on in the USA is shown to be non-solid, then it all can crumble down.

They cling to statements from some fucking white cunt bitch paralegal as if it is gospel
"LAAAWLL NO U CANT RESCIND"

They ignore lawyers who say... well a license absent an attached interest... is revocable...

"LLHHWWWAALLLL NO" -t.woman
trumps all legal analysis.


Destroy the legal foundation of the kernel in the USA and Linux becomes the hacker OS once again with a devil-may-care attitude to law (as it once had), instead of the faggot pro-woman ruling over worker mmaaaalleeesss bullshit it has become in the last decade.

All you have to do is get the story published: someone did rescind a GPL'd work and he can do so.

That's all you have to do.

But not even your lulz.com will publish this follow up.

Thanks Jow Forums

FUCK YOU
For all your complaints about the CoC, you do nothing. I prepare the field, all you have to do is light the fire. That's it. But you won't.

The GPL IS revokable in the USA, that is why the FSF requires copyright assignments for contributions (regardless of their claims). Here is the chink in the armor, the fatal flaw.

And you will do nothing.

fuck you, Jow Forums

Attached: lain_8_640.jpg (640x480, 157K)

>But not even your lulz.com will publish this follow up.
The first time you submitted the article it had already been published elsewhere.

Then you started spamming. There's a dozen unread submissions from you now.

Write something original, newsworthy, and interesting and I'll publish it.

>Quite frankly I'm more lost after reading this thread than when I first noticed it

It is simple: A license absent an interest is revocable.

Understand.
If you did not pay for CodeXYZ in ProjectWUUMANRULE-OS, the guy who wrote CodeXYZ can rescind the permission to use his code REGARDLESS of the terms of the license, from ProjectWUUMANRULE-OS.

The reason is because it's just permission to use the property, it is not a transfer(gift), and it is not a "deal" (contract). You didn't "buy" the "terms" in the license, so you cannot bind the grantor to honour those terms.

Attached: lain2.jpg (500x800, 164K)

What are they even using this game in? Or they just causing problems?

Hi Mike.

you just did yourself and this idea a great disservice
calm down and try again when you grow up a bit
petulant child

That's almost reasonable, why the hell did you blow up like a moron earlier? My comment was already up but you chose to blast everyone instead
cheesus crust man, just take it easy

Some male feminist bugmen are calling you a minor-attracted person (MAP) to discredit the idea of rescinding the GPL. How do you respond?

>The first time you submitted the article it had already been published elsewhere.

No it has not been, the slashdot submission is just that: an unpublished submission. You were ment to copy and paste that. It's like you were sent a pastebin link.

The point is that people were saying "GPL can't be rescinded because no one has done so". So here it is, a GPL recission, with the legal reasoning attached.

The linux kernel progammers do not understand the law, they just rely on a female paralegal (who is _still_ a paralegal in 2019) who conflated the law regarding commercial copyright licenses (for which there is bargained for, payed for consideration) with gratis licenses. I have a good guess as to what she read: "Copyright Litigation Handbook", and the chapter there deals with commercial licenses and infact does explain that the reason those are irrevocable absent their terms is because the purchaser gave good consideration for the license terms.

My Debian still works, idgaf.
> 4.9.0-8-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 4.9.130-2 (2018-10-27) x86_64 GNU/Linux

Sexist dude writes shitty GPLv2 text mode game, feminists who know he's a sexist retard clone it and fix all the shitty code, and he loses his ever loving incel pedo brain and goes nuts for going on a decade about it. Meanwhile he remains a pedo basement dwelling schitzo loser who won't let it go year after year.

PS thinks he found a loophole in GPLv2 that allows it to be rescinded, when copyright concerns copies that existed and one cannot retroactively revoke a license. That the people who modified the code had a copy of it means that that copy itself was forever *their* copy which they could then modify, thanks to the beauty of the GPL.

This bread has sth to do with Computers, right??

>Some male feminist bugmen are calling you a minor-attracted person (MAP) to discredit the idea of rescinding the GPL. How do you respond?

In the fifth law book, twenty second chapter, twenty eight verse, The True God (YHWH - He who is) explicitly allows men to take female children (Greek Septuagint: padia, Hebrew Masoretic Text: na'ar, (Latin Vulgate: puella)) as brides. Including in cases of force (MT: taphas).

Later in said law book the True God instructs that any who entice one to follow another God/Ruler/Judge/Power is to be immediately extinguished.

Attached: pp,550x550.u2.jpg (428x550, 114K)

Bump for interest

>PS thinks he found a loophole in GPLv2 that allows it to be rescinded, when copyright concerns copies that existed and one cannot retroactively revoke a license. That the people who modified the code had a copy of it means that that copy itself was forever *their* copy which they could then modify, thanks to the beauty of the GPL.

Yes you can. See the copyright act, the end of the 200's section. Copyright does not concern the physical representation of the data.

It concerns the data, the work itself.

No, you do NOT own the code. You do NOT own the right to determine who may redistribute, make derivative works, etc the work.

The copyright holder does.

You can contract to buy some rights, or some permissions from him. In the case of a permission it is a non-exclusive license (if it is an exclusive license it is treated as a transfer (perhaps for a set period of time)).

If you pay for the "terms" in a non-exclusive license, you can prevent the owner from reneging on those terms. Because you have purchased them (a contract).

If the author has simply allowed you, for no bargained for renumeration, to use his work. He may rescind that license at any time.

You have no attached interest.

Attached: lin4323.jpg (186x271, 12K)

>mfw user is a pedo rapist

Cant wait for the day they'll mess up some kernel code. C is tricky.

Once the GPL (or any bare license) is revoked, it's gone. Those words on that piece of paper you didn't pay for: they are no longer in effect.

POOF.

Gone.

You _CANNOT_ redistribute anymore, you _CANNOT_ make derivative works anymore, etc. Your permission has been revoked.

The GPL is not the law. It doesn't create law that survives a termination.

The law is that a License(GPL) absent an attached interest($$) is Revocable.

Once it is revoked you can not then stare at the license text and decide it's still applicable: that has been revoked. That permission from the owner to you is OVER. Gone.

THAT is the law.

Attached: 60229_serial_experiments_lain.jpg (1366x768, 129K)

Nope, never raped anyone, nor have anything to do with contraband.

Do support the True God and his laws which help men and hinder women.

Do hate the USA: the woman's CUNTtry, the global enemy of men.

Attached: bear.jpg (259x195, 6K)

Mike, I release something under Public Domain, someone gets a copy of it, and starts releasing it. They even make modifications of it.

I release another copy of something under my Super Sexist Hate Pedo License and no one can copy it. If someone modifes that copy, it's a big no no, but I already released it under the public domain so I can't do shit about their modifications of the original licensed work.

Stop being a pedo Mike.

so how to get more people to revoke GPL?
inb4:
>meme campain

i=1
For i=1 to eternity
>The author
>Blabla coding nerd wall of text
Next i

Is it happening or not? Fucking nerds

Xut the pinko sex penguin

Make devs feel like using it might jeopardize their legacy somewhere down the road.

>VB
I see what you're doing here.

computer field is full of pushover beta males who will never oppose these tyrannical trannies taking over their hobby so no its not happening

The article has not been published anywhere.
I have prepared the field for you to take the next step. All you have to do is publish an article. Make it your own.

Where the CoC saga is now:
"We can't rescind because other programmers told us we can't"

Is that where you want it? Do you like this ditch that you are stuck in? Or do you not care, just like to make a rukus but not have anything come of it?

The programmers believe in a falacy: that what the FSF says is true or is controlling law.

I have tried, every way I could, to shake them from this incorrect thinking.

They feel that your article from before has been "debunked". Me explaining otherwise is ignored.

You can consult with other lawyers, you will learn that a license without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor. You can read treatises on the subject and understand that the GPL, as the linux-kernel uses it, is a revocable license. You can understand why the FSF requires copyright assignment.

But the linux programmers do not believe the lawyers, the treatises, ... they believe a bitch named "PJ", who is a paralegal and argued:

"LALWLLL NA! HAHHAHA OFCOURSE NOT"

They believe the same sort of creature who now PUNISHES them as thanks for their decades of work on the kernel, who... having done nothing to create the edifice... rules over it and them.

You can edify them regarding their error. If you would read the submissions, read the links here, read what the quoted lawyers say.

You can read the Jow Forums thread and the 4+4 chan threads and understand why the SFConservancy's "debunking" is bullshit.

You'll learn that the GPLv2 does not have an "irrevocable by grantor" clause. You'll learn that Section 0 of the GPLv2 defines "you" as the licensee (not the grantor), and Section 4 simply clarifies that a sub-licensee does not automatically lose their permission just because a licensee "above" them did due to a violation of the license by the licensee "above" them.

You won't though.

Attached: Serial-Experiments-Lain-Restore-04.jpg (800x415, 276K)

I just don't know better, not gonna lie leafbro

Attached: images (5).jpg (272x185, 7K)

>Mike, I release something under Public Domain, someone gets a copy of it, and starts releasing it. They even make modifications of it.
GPL IS NOT A GRANT TO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN YOU FUCKING RETARD.

Your entire premise is bullshit and has already been addressed. I know you will not believe me that the GPL is not a grant to the Public Domain. I simply cannot help you there.

The GPL is a copyright license. It is NOT a repudiation of copyright, it is NOT a transfer or dedication of a work to the public domain.

It is a bare license, and since you did not pay anything for the terms, the permission can be revoked.

Attached: coopa-druaga.jpg (259x194, 10K)

If I may say, this could cripple future development.

>It is a bare license, and since you did not pay anything for the terms, the permission can be revoked.
Payment doesn't confer irrevocably. ACCEPTANCE OF THE LICENSE DOES.

>one cannot retroactively revoke a license
proof?
the lawyers say otherwise so bring some legal knowledge to the table and leave the childish insults back on your tranny discord

The dude is a self described child fucker.

Why do you sabotage yourself? I was reading your reasonable post and was about to reply with some thoughts and there you go again:

>You won't though

You have a huge chip on your shoulder and keep blowing up and condescending to people who have done you no wrong and owe you nothing.

I just want everyone to see, that the lulz guy, he could move the ball forward, but he _choses_ not to.

We have moved from
>Lol u can't rescind bcuz no one has

To
>Someone has, and explains why it can be done in the post
lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52

The lulz.com FAGGOT will not write a new article.

He ACCEPTS the SFConservancy's "debunking"

All he cares about is that his website has months-old stale new articles on the front page.

He will not fight the CoC and, since we do not have voices, everyone takes his silence as an admission of defeat to the SFConservancy and ZDNet's "debunking".

I can't make you lawyers. I have tried and tried to explain to you the law. You just will not believe me.

I then send you to publications by public lawyers you just ignore this as if these people and their works do not exist.

I can't fight the CoC alone. And you people simply won't help. You don't give a shit.

You could burn the linux-kernel's legal footing to ash in the USA. You could take that scalp rather than letting the cunt women have it.

You could help linux-faggot-programmers find their balls and take them home.

But you WILL NOT.
You refuse.
Some resistance.

The fields are soaked in oil, ready to ignite. "RESCIND" is in the minds of those of the linux and opensource zeitgeist. They protest "NO THIS CANNOT BE DONE", "WE WILL PUNISH YOU FOR SAYING IT"

Because they fear. They know... that it can be done.
> Anonymous 01/21/19(Mon)11:54:18 No.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.


You just have to light it up. But you will not.

Attached: coopa-druaga3.jpg (205x246, 8K)

Every
Fucking
Time

Attached: 1537211904509.png (1228x667, 498K)

>You have a huge chip on your shoulder and keep blowing up and condescending to people who have done you no wrong and owe you nothing.

And this is why the GPL can be rescinded.
>and owe you nothing.

This is what the linux kernel devs and the women do not understand: that the law, too, believes that You owe others... nothing.

And those who have given nothing, get nothing.
Don't we both want this to become the truth?

Don't we want the undeserving to be thrown from their throne. #Publish

The question you must ask yourself is: Do you want to destroy your enemy, or do you want to coddle your pride vs my mean words to you.

I know you don't believe it, but I am an attorney. I have laid in-front of you the tools. Will your pride prevent you from wielding them? Is the lulz.com editor of the same stuff as those he criticizes?

Attached: coopa-druga.jpg (960x536, 59K)

Da fuq. I *am* "the lulz guy" and you've baked me into some kind of conspiracy theory because I don't read spam submissions. You're highly unstable and you sabotage yourself, nobody else is doing it for you.

You being mentally ill doesn't mean anything to the actual facts of the case, however. I'll see if I can salvage your stuff for a follow up article if I can parse some merit from the various rants.

I didn't even know that rescinding a license in GPLv2 was a contested thing I thought it was a feature of it to protect free software from dishonest businesses

Nope, I simply respect and support the laws of YHWH as seen in the 5th law book. Anathema to you WUUUUMAN worshiping "white" men, ofcourse.

Attached: coopa-druga2.jpg (480x360, 29K)

That motherfucker is going to kill some bitches, I guarantee you. He'll never be satisfied over this because what he's suggesting is so asinine it's not even funny.

But you write your follow up article, could be pretty clickbaity and get on HN and other sites, get you some views.

>You being mentally ill doesn't mean anything to the actual facts of the case, however. I'll see if I can salvage your stuff for a follow up article if I can parse some merit from the various rants.

Thank you, that is all I wanted.

Areas to segway in would be the quotes from Lawrence Rosen's book, and the quote from the Law professor (they're quoted in the LKML email). They said it succenctly, the law behind it all.

After that, you might want to throw in some counterings of the SFConservancy's "debunking" which was published after your article. I did counter-debunk them within a few hours but it was not read. The issue there is that they are conflating Section 4 of the GPLv2 with a "no revocation" clause, which it is not. They then talk about the printer driver case, which again they conflate. I've addressed that many times, the most recent of being the "Zaibatsu" post in the Jow Forums thread: (post 69460638)

Attached: xontemp20160405153509-00.jpg (620x349, 70K)

I'm not going to kill anyone.
A friend of mine is allready going in for life for drunkenly running over an indian woman.

I wouldn't want that life for myself. If only he was an officer in the Raj...

Please post any and all relevant links in the submission form or DM them to my twitter. I haven't kept tabs on the linux stuff in months.

wtf how did yall niggas spill out of yalls tranny discord into Jow Forums

Call me when everyone removes their code and leaves these whores with nothing.

Get a lawyer man wtf. Or are you a broke nigga?

bump for OP being a whiny baby with an intredasting bread
here you go baby

>fifth law book
what are we talking about here user

Sorry bud I hate feminism but I have no idea what the fuck any of this programming shit is. I didn’t know what to say

>if vs switch
every modern compiler will generate the same code

Attached: hitler-compiler.png (850x400, 145K)

>Programmers think that the GPL is irrevocable
most programmers are fucking idiots and deserve to be put in gulag for pandering to the fucking left

ask Jow Forums

are you a blue-haired geek feminist wearing problem glasses?

yea generally if you are going to use them with strings you precompute a unique hash for each string and assign them to some name/value structure (usually an enum or pseudo-dictionary) first; this can be made fast in later versions of C++ where you can precompute via constexpr in some cases, but it leads to either A) precomputing at runtime (in effect running through the hashing and building the switch) or B) compile time, in the case of precomputing via constexpr.
This is of course assuming that the code is written in C++; it will still be similar in nature in other languages, but you likely won't be able to precompute at compile time.
Either way; you would have to be a retard to not know these types of things and code.

>Linux bongo 2.6.38-16 #67-Ubuntu SMP Thu Sep 6 18:33:57 UTC 2012 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Haha, loser lain loving anime fag. I program for a living and don't give a single fuck about your stupid petty shit.

Mike, take your fucking meds you lunatic.

Wizchan is the place you belong.

no, that's antifa, bamn and the revolutionary workers league

Attached: nambla -bamn - lawyers.jpg (640x640, 116K)

Most developers dont make efficient code and dont care about optimization. Most clients buy expensive hardware to run code that is 200x or 1000x slower than well written C because speed of development is more important. When the client asks you to build a backend for his shitty web app in a week are you going to build it with immaculate C or use php, node, spring or some other quick to build slow to run environment

2012? I’m using an up to date Debian stable.

>Is it relevant as the CoC'd linux programmers could do the same?
All they have to do is find and ask some acquaintance lawyer about this thing and then burn everything down. Though I somehow doubt that it will work out. This CoC bullshit is obvious ploy by big tech corporations like Jewgle, Microshit and others to take over free/independent programmers/programs and they obviously blackmail many key people to take CoC(k) or else.

Thankfully C is as weakly typed as you can get.

instead of

string == "abc"

you can hack:

string[0] == 99

Voilà.

>Programmers think that the GPL is irrevocable
If it was it wouldn't jave been changed on GPL v3.
If anyomne tries to weasel out with "its just there for clarification" then ask them why there were no other clausiles added to address other misconceptions.

So some tranny faggots are mad at a pedo faggot and in between is some faggot casinocode?

>Programmers think that the GPL is irrevocable. Lawyers try to tell them otherwise.
It is the case with GPL3, it has a few clauses that make it cancer. The Linux kernel as an example still resides on GPL2 because Linus didn't like the clause in GPL3 that every edition of the GPL would supplant prior versions indefinitely. You're an absolute fool if you release under GPL3 in this political climate because you run the risk that GPL4 will have some SJW clauses in it to fuck you over. GPL3 has clauses in it that prevent a sub-licencee from getting fucked by a code revocation. Each revocation has to be purposeful to an individual group, a blanket "nobody can use this any longer" is not possible under GPL3 because of the ramifcations down the chain. IBM is not going to put their neck out unless they got assurances that a Terry Davis type isn't going to fuck them over and set them back.