This is big news for several reasons
first I am executing this second, I work on CS so here's the backstory.
Last year everyone on Unix(freeBSD, Linux, e.t.c.) got cucked by the contributor covenant made by some German Faggot.
more here -> contributor-covenant.org
what did it say? well, e.g. virtual hugs sind verboten
Contributors were kicked for no reason.
the only ones to oppose this change were a few Linux devs and all of the openBSD community.
On FreeBSD everything was cucked.
It seems that there are devs out there who are making a difference by naming the jew, or standing their ground. We've seen some of them in google, fb, mozzarella, e.t.c.
on the subject:
read this archive.is
originaru here: twitter.com
expect a massive backlash from those opinions. It doesn't matter if he is right or wrong, I predict that he is going to get fucked.
OSS developer names the Jews
Other urls found in this thread:
lkml.org
lkml.org
scholarship.law.duke.edu
amazon.com
papers.ssrn.com
github.com
lkml.org
twitter.com
The license revokation was very funny too.
Tell us more. What has this got to do with Jews? Is this standard pro Palestine leftist Jew hatred or right wing?
I can't believe people seriously use those cutesy cartoon avatars
they wanted to kick those who were against the tranny rules, but they got GPL'dv2.
and for those who don't know the story, when linux adopted the contributor covenant, some started digging up emails, twits and anything they could find to kick a few of the high-ranking devs who were against the change. They attacked them, so they said that according to the linux kernel license they can retract their code... when the trannies heard that, they stopped it, because as we all know, trannies can't code.
it's hard to figure out programming on that level and be unable to figure out all those jewish crimes
you can't be that smart and that dumb at the same time
havent read yet but yes, we are in a post-truth world where you will be destroyed for speaking the truth
>Is this standard pro Palestine leftist Jew hatred
It is.
>Tell us more. What has this got to do with Jews? Is this standard pro Palestine leftist Jew hatred or right wing?
if only I could post the same thread in the cucked Jow Forums board.
anyhow, that guy works for the good-goyim organizations that produces an operating system that is used by many companies, almost all playstations use it, apple uses it, nintendo uses it and many routers use it.
there was a thread where some guy and a jew said a few things
thedailybeast com/meghan-mccains-husband-ben-domenech-goes-on-unhinged-homophobic-rant-against-cuck-seth-meyers
then this escalated to twitter
twitter com/AdamSerwer/status/1126141384384184320
and then, when the conversation was on-going the guy in the OP started asking weird questions and saying dangerous things about israel.
freebsd.org is a SJW hive. you will be beheaded if anything outside of the leftist rhetoric is said. So, expect a huge backlash from those statements.
The guy will most probably lose his job for stating the obvious.
What's most interesting, is that there are many people on the thread I posted in OP, where they attack him based on his nationality and what not.
>It is.
> - stop killing Palestinians and stop expanding to their territory
> - this is antisemitism
The former. Leftists try to make this distinction because they don't want to be considered antisemitic in their criticism of Israel, ignoring that it's Jewish behavior found among all Jews and Jewish groups that underpins Israeli policy.
Basically, they're trying to explain summer heat without the sun
We won this land in war. Bend the knee or perish.
>We won this land in war. Bend the knee or we're telling America!
Facts don't care about your greentexts.
No you lied and cheated and stole it. You wont keep it. Nobody is willing to defend you.
It's always irrational to attack an entire group, except when that group is white people.
Wrong.
i need your cum, greatest ally!
BUMP
SAY GOODBYE TO YOUR KERNEL FGT
Fact if you don't have the strength to defend your own land you have no claim to it. Were it not for America serving as your shield: the arabs would have genocided you all to the last many years ago
No one cares you stinky Paleshit nigger.
>We won this land in war.
then why are you crying about the 6 gorillion.
you lost the war in germany, you got fucked in the ass.
Motte and bailey argument, classic kikery.
>we won this land in war
>we were given this land by the Brits
>we were given this land by G_d
>we always had this land, goyim
The Jew nests the arguments like layers in an onion.
Remember: Non-exclusive Free licenses are revocable in the US. If you are CoC'd or MeToo'd it's an option to consider.
For easy to read by lay-people discussions on this topic:
lkml.org
lkml.org
For legal articles and treatises that agree: no consideration from GPL free-taker, no contract, revocable by the copyright holder:
scholarship.law.duke.edu
amazon.com
papers.ssrn.com
Free Licenses are revocable by the Copyright holder.
A defense against license revocation is the existence of a contractual relationship between the copyright-owner and the licensee.
However, where no such relationship exists, no such protection is apparent.
Obeying a preexisting legal duty (such as to not commit copyright infringement by using/modifying/etc a work without permission) is insufficient to create a contract.
Illusory promises are not binding upon the grantor.
For those who have chosen to not pay the Grantor of a "G" "P" "L" (GPL) license, the license can be revocated at the will of the copyright owner.
""retroactively""
Remeber: non-exclusive licenses do not transfer any rights. Only permissions (license), which can be revoked, and without a contractual agreement such revocations do not give rise to damages against the Copyright owner.
Nothing gets you nothing.
>Not true, you enter an implicit contract the moment you start using a product with a free license. Note that I've said product, not service. Services can very much update their terms and conditions, and frequently do so. Equally the creator can change the conditions and licensing on updates or new versions of a product. You can't be revoked a free license for a product you're already using though.
Incorrect, where the user has paid no fee (or service or action) to the copyright holder, there is nothing to support the existance of a contract where the user could hold the copyrightholder to the "terms". (IE: the free-taker attacking the hand that fed him)
The user MUST obey the license, but that is due to copyright law, not contracting law.
A court, may, at it's discretion, choose not to enforce the Copyright Holder's lawful rights under equity, of course, and may indeed do so for a lay user (a consumer). The use allowance would likely only extend to actual use of the software: not modification and public distribution.
(So-far, one must note, the courts only did so for commercial software for paying customers, some 1990s cases)
The Copyright Holder can prevent the use of its code in new versions of the product, aswell as new distribution of "old" versions of it's code (IE: pressing new CDs containing the now-withdrawn code (or new-downloads of said withdrawn code)). Shops that have old linux distributions with stock of old linux CDs would likely be-able to still sell that stock, however modification and distribution of the withdrawn code would not be allowed by the user of such.
The Copyright owner has not transfered his interest in controlling the distribution and modification, etc of his work. He has simply allowed it to occur, free of charge. That can end at any time.
The FSF requires a transfer of copyright for this very reason, regardless of what other surface excuses they give as excuses (which almost seem like fraud-in-the-inducement, honestly)
> Did you go to a legitimate law school or did you study law all by yourself?
Legitimate law school. My professors from the school agree that free licenses do not create a contract, and the license is revocable: They take it as a matter of course: it's obvious on it's face.
>That's not how licensing works, you fucking idiot.
Yes it is. You are thinking of commercial copyright license contracts, which is what your handbooks inform you on. The entirety of the "irrevocability" argument you find therein is the existance of a contract between the grantor and the licensee, which binds both to the terms. With free licenses no such contract exists, due to a lack of consideration on the part of the licensee; and no: "I promise to not violate your copyright" is not valid consideration as it is a pre-existing legal duty.
Other lawyers who have expressed similar opinions are David McGowan and Lawrence Rosen, in addition to Kumar (author to a rather famous paper on the subject).
Lawyers who have concretely stated otherwise are:
No one. The best you get is a highly couched statement of dissimulation from one Red Hat attorney who was hired by the Software Freedom Conservancy.
More recently the Male Red Hat attorneys put out a statement that tacitly acknowleges revocation as a danger from "judgement proof" individuals (IE: pennyless, unemployed, NEETs, who can't be fired from the job they don't have in retaliation, and hold no recoverables (thus the threat of protacted litigation and legal fees during holds no sway over them)), individuals who happen to make up a sizeable portion of Open Source copyright holders.
>Oh man, I'd fuck Yotsugi.
>cute doll
Correct
>why make this thread every day?
Because you do not like this thread yet.
>Artifex!
In Artifex v. Hancom the court doesn't even correctly identify the GPL. It misconstrues the preliminary ("pay us for commercial license or use the GPL") writing (offer to do business) + the GPL as "The GPL".
Additionally in Artifex the situation is where the licensee decided NOT to pay and NOT to obey the GPL gratis license either, thus Violating the Contract the court construed created by the licensee "accepting" the preliminary writing / offer to do buisness ("Pay us OR GPL") (licensee chose : NEITHER! But I still USE! HAHA!").
The remedy is EITHER a breach of contract remedy (for not paying under the preliminary license) OR (and NOT BOTH) Copyright Damages for violating the license.
Copyright holder was given the option to decide.
This have little relevance to where a Copyright Owner allows gratis (free) licensees and then chose to withdraw/cancel/rescind the gratis licenses.
Regardless of what smoke FSF / SFLC and corp wish to blow up your ass.
>Promissory estoppel.
Promissory estopple is an equitable defense, used when a heir is promised land, then improves the land outlay of monies, and then the estate denies him title. In this area it's related to the ancient livery of seizin, and without reference to that would not have been accepted by the courts in the first place.
Another area it's used is when a worker would otherwise be dispossessed of his rightful renumeration because of some failure in contract formation, the courts sometimes use promissory estopple to get the promissor to not stiff the contract worker. Here it's similar to quantum meruit in a way, or quazi contact theories.
A third time it's used is when a father promises a daughter something, the courts felt bad for the daughter (a woman, duh) and estopped the father from not giving her money.
In the first and third case it involves a family member and a one to one promise from the estate holder. In the second case it involves a worker who did the work and was about to get screwed.
In no cases has it involved non-exclusive "promises" to random unidentified strangers involving software licenses.
>Also, the consideration here would be the right to work on the project, which is good and valuable because of the reputation, experience, etc. which comes from contributing code.
Linus needed permission from nobody to contribute code to himself.
Consideration, to be valid, must be bargained-for consideration. Non-bargained for consideration is no consideration at all. Those copyright holders who licensed their patches under the GPL, did not necessarily seek fame, reputation, etc, and such was not promised by the linux project to those programmers in exchange for the licensing of the code. There was no exchange of bargained-for consideration.
>Thanks for playing, user.
Sorry snaky fuck, I've researched this far more than you, am an attorney, and can cite 3 other attorneys who have published papers and books recognizing that the GPL is revocable.
>we
moder day jews aren't semites, but the synagogue of satan
To: Andrew Sampson: Rights granted by the GPL _can_ be "retroactively" retracted. Yes I am a lawyer
Dear Andrew Sampson;
The proclamations given in the thread: github.com
If the non-exclusive licensee did not pay the copyright holder consideration for receipt of the permissions given regarding the copyrighted work, the copyright holder can freely rescind those permissions _AT_ANY_TIME_ .
The reasons are as follows: For the licensee to "hold" the licensor to any promise regarding when and how rescission is to take place there must be a contract between the two. A contract requires valid bargained-for consideration. Otherwise any "promise" made is an Illusory Promise (unenforceable).
"Nothing" is not valid consideration.
Obeying a pre-existing duty is not valid consideration.
The licensee has a pre-existing duty to obey copyright law, without permission from the copyright holder he may not use/modify/make-derivative-works-of/distribute/distribute-derivative-works-of. That permission is what he is attempting to "contract" for. Saying one will follow those permissions is not valid consideration to "pay" for those permissions. Promising not to violate the copyright holder's rights -by promising to only use the copyrighted works as freely permitted by the copyright holder, is not valid consideration as that is a pre-existing duty.
Yes: Codeusa: you _C_A_N_ revoke GPL permissions from free-takers at your will. And you should do so if that is needed for your livelihood to succeed.
You should do so if it is simply your want.
Do not the pennyless leaches intimidate you from making your own decisions regarding your work of authorship. They gave you nothing, you asked for nothing, they have nothing. Remember: a non-exclusive license is not a transfer, it is permission. Permission that can be ended at any time unless there exists an attached interest (ie: the other side payed you for a license contract)
Also Remember: The FSF has _always_ (and still does) required Copyright Transfers before it would accept a contribution.
And yes: I am a lawyer.
Of course: consult your local copyright attorney. Strategy is important in these cases. The free-loaders feel they have the 9th circuit judges in the bag, and that the 9th circuit will invalidate the concept of consideration if needed to protect the California tech industry (so revoke from those outside the 9th circuit first).
For easy to read by lay-people discussions on this topic:
lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/4/334
lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/3/698
For legal articles and treatises that agree: no consideration from GPL free-taker, no contract, revocable by the copyright holder:
scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/
www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237
Note: I tried to inform you of this on your github account but was immediatly "hell banned" by github.
Sincerely;
Pro-Bono Attorney
kids, always remember that gplv3 changed this.
you will get cucked if you contribute to gplv3, as you cannot revoke your code.
in gplv2 you can take your code back.
I can not wait til the flood of brown people upset the apple cart on your client state. It is just a matter of time. You people are insane for letting your dysporia destroy Americas consensus like they do. You refused to step in and stop them now a huge portion of the population hates you and is growing. Evangelicals are shrinking, these mulatto mutts are not going to be the good goys you think they will be. Your entire plan is foolish and short sighted. You got way too greedy. The white gentiles would have protected you. Your hatred of them doomed you.
Re: Can a recipients rights under GNU GPL be revoked? - Yes if they are free(gratis) licensees.
Yes, if the licensee has not paid anything (no money, no service, etc) that you asked him for, for the license, it can be freely revoked. The "clarification" by the FSF is complete and utter bullshit (and was prompted by my writing on the issue).
For a licensee to prevent a revocation, he must be able to enforce some promise regarding revocation (when it can occur, etc) that the copyright holder made to him.
In order to have an enforceable promise he must have paid the owner something for that promise, otherwise it is an illusory promise and will not be enforced by the court.
"Promising" to fulfill a pre-existing duty is not sufficient payment (consideration) either. One pre-existing duty we all have is to follow laws. Promising to not violate someone's copyright is not valid consideration as it is a pre-existing duty.
Before the license grant the free-taker has the following "rights" to the work:
Nothing.
After the license grant he has the following permissions regarding the work:
(Whatever the license says).
And for that he has paid the copyright owner: nothing.
No valid consideration, no contract, any "promise" made in the license text is illusory: it cannot be relied upon (including the "irrevocable" clause in the GPLv3: that clause is _inoperative_ from the perspective of a free-licensee vs the owner).
(Additionally, consideration, to be valid, must be bargained for. Tendering unwanted "consideration" is no consideration at all, thus the "fame is payment enough" argument from the dicta of a 9th circuit case is of no value when the licensor did not specifically bargain for such in exchange. You cannot hand the owner something after the fact and declare it valid consideration)
You can revoke. You can do so for any reason or for no reason at all.
>circumscribed circle
Fuck off with you jewish maths
The FSF and SFLC swear that you can bite the hand that feeds you for free. They are incorrect and purposefully deceiving you in order to safeguard their movement against the men who actually did the work to create the corpus it rests upon.
Note: If you would like a nice expansive legal paper to read on this issue, Sapna Kumar's paper is good: scholarship.law.duke.edu
If that is too formal and you prefer a stream of consciousness message board fight on this issue, the LKML has you covered: lkml.org
If you want a book, to have and to hold, that recognizes this: amazon.com
If a paper by some mere lawyers isn't good enough, a law professor's take on the subject might be more you style: papers.ssrn.com
Yes, the GPL is revocable from free licensees. Yes they will fight you in court if you revoke from someone who cares, so when you are thinking of revocation: 1) properly register your copyrights ... 3) Then revoke from an entity domiciled in a property-friendly circuit that isn't going to simply invalidate the idea of contracts requiring actual valid consideration (IE: do not revoke from someone in the 9th circuit as your first course of action: revoke from an entity in another circuit)
(Also note: Do not send a cease-and-desist letter off the bat: the entity can then rush to the court house to seek a hearing regarding his rights to the work. You don't want to be in a race-to-the-courthouse situation and not even know it)
Part 0) and 2) are :Get [an] experienced copyright attorney(s) who is well familiar with the leanings of the various federal circuits so you can formulate a proper strategy. The 9th circuit loves "Big Tech" and doesn't much care for the formalities of law, and if requiring consideration to actually exist regarding copyright licenses for them to be mutually enforceable contracts gets in the way of California's Tech industry: guess how they're going to rule in a "new insightful groundbreaking finding".
Non-exclusive free licenses are freely revocable by the copyright owner, irrespective of what the license text asserts.
gas all kikes
>hates pi on principal
Because they know that [redacted]
Remember: Non-exclusive Free licenses are revocable in the US. If you are CoC'd or MeToo'd it's an option to consider.
For easy to read by lay-people discussions on this topic:
lkml.org
lkml.org
For legal articles and treatises that agree: no consideration from GPL free-taker, no contract, revocable by the copyright holder:
scholarship.law.duke.edu
amazon.com
papers.ssrn.com
Sephardics get cucked by Ashkenazi as shitskins. So they take it out on the goyim.
>WE IZ HAVE SLAVES TOO!!!
True story. Mizrahi shitskins are still the bottom of the barrel of course.
you don't say......
>Facts don't care about your greentexts.
You didn't win any war you fucking idiot. The British Empire dug that little piece of shit you call home out for you as a outpost for their adventurism.
Fucking idiot. Israel would be nothing without Britain and U.S.
Notice how ists and isms always have fluid definitions? Oodles my noodles
notice how bad things end in -ism and -ist
and "bad" things start with anti-
Like anti-racist?
Thanks for your service user
People on this thread make a good case for the rabbi.
((((((((())))))))))
Just a tip...
When normal people hear "The Jews did ...." it immediately puts them off since their intellectual antibodies kick in.
If, instead, you would begin to identify individual people and call out their actions, it would not sound (or be) so racist. I know it's harder, but it's worth it.
I'm sure that there are crimes and misdeeds committed by many people. It may even be the case that since there are apparently so many Jewish people in positions of power (readily proven with data, e.g. % of congress that is Jewish), they have disproportionate bearing on extremely important issues.
But when you lead off with the indictment of the entire ethnic group, it just doesn't work on normie minds; it's easier for them to lump you in with "ignorant racists" than to accept your premise.
For many voices here, the premise that Jews are involved in a global conspiracy is the principal idea, and the particular examples are just points of evidence. However, it's better to let normal people draw that conclusion / extrapolation on their own (if true).
Correct me if you disagree -- I'd be glad to hear any rational counter-argument and maybe both of us can sharpen our ideas.
>Motte and bailey argument
The fuck? Please understand no actual Jew has any idea what the fuck you're talking about when you use some very obscure Jewish term that you read in some shitty Wikpedia article or whatever. I'm sure you think it makes you sound smart but it just makes you sound like a fucking whackjob