This is Linux in 201:

>All I asked was who he was mentioning
Kek

In the minds of SJWs, rape isn't an act but rather an ideology. They use the term "rape apologist" like a sane person would use the term "Christian apologist"
I'm not joking (but I wish I were).
All Ted Tso did was analyze some statistics and draw logical conclusions

Honest question, why can't people just tell them to fuck off and simply ignore these sjws?

hmmm.
Anyone remember the MIcrosoft SCO brouhaha?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-01-01 at 5.35.20 PM.png (622x615, 121K)

Everyone has to get paid, ultimately. Also, maintaining sites like Github isn't free. If big corporations want to control open source projects, this is how they can do it.

>drugs
wtf i love coc now

>posting shit from 2018
nobody gives a FUCK about that old ass shit

>employment
so that means get a job > refuse to work because it discriminates against your values on employment

Daily reminder this is all Linus' fault. Insane people will always exist, the people that give in to their demands and accept their ramblings should be hung for treason

Richard Stallman early in this interview describes the hacker culture which was literally bought and destroyed by monied interests
youtube.com/watch?v=Gnw_K5DPkbc

You can always fork it with a non-cucked CoC

ITT. Reminder that OP is a fag who has contributed zero patches to the kernel and is not relevant.

Attached: 1546198389006.png (784x349, 65K)

Keep in mind that based ted is the only fucking reason that linux has proper software randization for encryption.
The proposed solution before that was to use a hardware randomizer made by fucking intel.

What a fucking coincidence that teddy tso is the FIRST fucking person they go immediately following the public castration chasitiy locking of linus' tiny sweedish fish penis

And yes, linus is a fucking cuck. He let government agencies, big corps (mainly red hat, intel and ibm) and their purple haired proxies take away his lifes work. Pathethic.
What would the 90's linus think? They guy that turned down a job offer by steve jobs to work on linux.

Attached: 1508035667844.jpg (1024x768, 66K)

>reminder this is all Linus' fault.
Wrong, nigger. This shit exists across pretty much the entire business world.Suits are the ones to blame. They accepted this as a means to avoid lawsuits from their employees.There's no legit concern for social justice, it's all about protecting their asses. This idiot SJW's are so arrogant, they actually believe this is a victory for them.

>he thinks software is about programming ability

Attached: software.png (889x394, 44K)

>Learn to suck our femenines penis

>The future is female, so I became one

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-01-01 at 6.36.26 PM.png (298x664, 235K)

Hm that is pretty interesting

still better than triying to destroy it

>Your cutest trans pocket friends
>Cutest
I beg to differ.

Ted should sue him and Twitter for defamation

Attached: 1515418494673.jpg (511x671, 33K)

>Not compared to my generous folder of cute trannies

I love how it's always the fucking ugly ones.
The "hot" ones just act like genetic thots or do porn for easy gibs

The only thing that will destroy the kernel is if no one writes code for it anymore.
Spending time getting trolled by wannabe pundits on twitter isn't writing code.

to be fair i can imagine this dude as a guy and it's even worse

>Keeping a folder for porn
It's like you want people to catch you in the act

Eh, shave the blue hair off, wear manly glasses, and lose some weight and he'd be just fine

>linux users are tranny faggots
this explains their autistic rage and lack of selfawareness

There's a very obvious flaw with this:
Only relevant thing for the project is quality code.

It doesn't matter if you burn orphanages as a hobby, as long as you write better code you are the better choice than any saint with garbage code.

The feminists are just a ruse to consolidate corporate power in Linux.

Last year Microsoft bought Github, IBM bought Redhat and Linus left.

They don't want individual kernel developers anymore, they don't even want money from individuals anymore. Pic related is not an edit, you literally cannot donate money to fund kernel development anymore. So where is kernel development funding coming from?

Big corporations literally kidnapped linux.

Attached: conspiracy.png (1341x639, 68K)

>hung for treason
hanged for treason. Being hung means something else entirely

Attached: 1522428892772.jpg (640x480, 65K)

depends on if you mean choice for a job, since a lot of this stuff concerns HR (surprise surprise full of non-technical women) more than programming, in which they could easily be in favor of discarding you for a diversity candidate, though i don't think most are brainwashed enough to say merit in code is a social construct and different code is equally valid

paid accounts : github.com/pricing

wut, i just think drug use should be protected. if i want to do a tiny therapeutic amount of heroin every friday night instead of going out drinking i ought to have that right and not be judged for it

>github.com/pricing
I honestly don't have a problem with this. That's obviously not to what I was referring to

what relation is the linux foundation to linux?

You just made me aware that i know nothing of the employment structure of linux. Is the foundation a regular corp with offices? Always had the image of a bunch of lose nerds collaborating over the net. I believe that was at least true for the kernel code contributors.

most kernel developers are paid by companies

nobody kidnapped anything, who do you think has been writing your drivers for years?

>therapeutic
>heroin
no.

The harsh reality is most people are irresponsible goys who are unable to live a responsible life while having the choice not to. Because mongrels make up the majority, society would be unable to function without controlling these npcs. If you want to do heroin so badly, you can already do it without consequence—just be smart enough to do it without getting caught. If you can't, then you don't deserve to do it.

Attached: 1529935082714.png (1198x1362, 1.59M)

If you don't like it, and you are linux contributor, since you did not sign over your copyright, you CAN rescind the license you granted to your code.

>NO YOU CANT!!!

A license is not a transfer of ownership, a non-exclusive license is especially not a transfer of ownership rights.

The default rules regarding property licenses (and copyrighted works are property, we can thank the Copyright Act for that) is that if someone didn't pay you for a forbearance, they cannot rely on your forbearance.

That is: if they did not pay you not to revoke: they have not purchased from you the "right" to stop you exercising you right to revoke.

Basically: you lent them your property, they paid you nothing, you can demand its return at any time.

Yes, I know that the pro-CoC people say this isn't so. They are wrong.

Eben Moglen has been silent these last two months because he knows that position is wrong.

There is no interest to bind the rights-holders.

>But I rely on you NOT rescinding

If you borrowed a hammer from me, paying me nothing, and then relied on that hammer for your business, you do not now OWN that hammer. I can rescind your license to the hammer and take it back.

Same with licensed code.

Remeber: linux is under GPLv2, which doesn't even have a no-revocation-by-grantor clause

NOTE: that is not to say that GPLv3's clause would even be applicable: STILL the property owner was not paid for the forbearance of the right, so still an interest does not attach.

You have to pay.

Attached: coopaca4e8f034f9c97badfe--costumes-series.jpg (195x391, 18K)

None. It's a PR thing for corporate clowns who have volunteered to the community.

It's really that the left has gotten a lot more extreme. The right has moved way to the center on most fronts. That graph can be manipulated a bit based on what questions were chosen in the survey.

Liberals on average are much more likely to 'unfriend' or block people on social media for having different opinions. Liberals are worse at predicting what conservatives believe than vice versa. And believe their opponents are more likely to be immoral. As opposed to being just factually wrong.

There's nothing special about the left though. I do believe it may have been the opposite in the past, and could switch again in the future. There's just a certain personality type that is really hyper tribalistic about political beliefs. The same cat ladies in the past. That were really strict about going to church and not swearing. Are the same people being really strict about gender pronouns or whatever today. Same personality type, just raised into a different set of cultural values.

Remeber: there are 100s, 1000s of linux contributors who were NOT employees of some company and were not paid for their work.

The copyright to their code lies with the author: them.

They can rescind the license they have granted to it. That is the RIGHT of a property holder, and code IS property.

Attached: The.Tower.Of.Druaga.full.60492.jpg (556x777, 90K)

For such unpaid work, the grant is simply a gratuity:

You paid nothing for it.
You can not bind the property owners hands.

If he does not (and it is a he) want his code in linux 4.21, he can rescind the license and force its removal.

i have done it in this manner for years with no consequences. it IS therepeutic

If you were able to rescind previous licenses then the entire concept of licensing open source code under permissive licenses would be pointless.

Don't sink your own ship trying to defend it from others.

That's not remotely how that works you retard

> maintaining sites like github isn’t free

>Making money is bad

>mfw some autist actually believes this and makes a scene

Attached: Park_Choa_at_a_fansigning_event,_28_June_2014.jpg (848x1028, 111K)

Are you still here posting this scam bait? Have your (You) and never post again.

>DevOps culturalist

Attached: 1522199085973.png (1920x1080, 1.28M)

>If you were able to rescind previous licenses then the entire concept of licensing open source code under permissive licenses would be pointless.

Yes it would be. And guess what. Legally: in the USA: it IS.

A license, without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor.

That is the rule.

That is the fact.

There are the default rules: A property owner can rescind a license.

You can pay the property owner to have him promise to you that he will not rescind. In that case you are paying him for said forbearance.

Such a promise does NOT exist in the GPLv2.
EVEN if such a promise did exist, if you did not PAY for it, he does not have to honor it.

Do you get it?

Understand why the first and second generation of OSS licenses were laughed at? Understand why third generation licenses (GPLv3, MPL, etc) had to be drafted?

And even then, if there is not an attached interest there is nothing reasonable about your reliance.

>Are you still here posting this scam bait? Have your (You) and never post again.

It is not scam bait. People claiming that you cannot rescind a gratuitous license are LYING to you.

They do not want you to try it.

And YES YOU SHOULD DO IT.

If they are ejecting you and treating you as expendable, you SHOULD BURN IT DOWN.

And you, CAN.

They did not pay you, they did not contract with you, they had nothing to do with you.

You simply granted a GRATUITY.
And you CAN take it back.

There have been multiple papers written on this, dealing with the GPLv2 specifically.

If they did not pay you, they have nothing to bind you.

You never even promised to anyone that you would forego your default rights.

You simply stated "hey, you licensee, if you don't extend the same terms as here, your license is automatically revoked".

"I will never revoke your license" was never part of the deal.

In fact there never was ANY deal.

They just said "here's some code". You gave them nothing for it.

You can trust me on this.

Attached: 898e4b9e4f4b548a7eae55489f0e8137--italian-marble-classic-interior.jpg (500x426, 74K)

> If you were able to rescind previous licenses then the entire concept of licensing open source code under permissive licenses would be pointless.

I have some bad news for you, regarding US law...

There is a reason the FSF and others require copyright assignment to them for contributions, and it is not the bullshit they tell you.

> Don't sink your own ship trying to defend it from others.

Better to drown with with the enemy, than to let them sail away.

Yes you CAN and you ___SHOULD___ rescind.

>burn it down
This attitude is not welcome here.

>you can trust me
t. proprietary shill. pitch your shit to some closed source developers, I'm sure they would be willing to take you up on the scam you're peddling. The only one at risk here of being ejected is you, and while I could laugh at seeing you flail around, I actually hope you succeed, because it's less time we have to waste until we can get on to solving the real problem of how to have a kernel that doesn't suck.

Those people actually have enough power to force linus to go on leave from linux. You really think real people can afford to write code for linux when they can get their career ruined like that guy is doing to this tso dude?

Long story short:

The CoC lovers say you cannot rescind the license you extended.

They are lying to you through their teeth.

You will not believe me because you have not attended instruction regarding the law. There is no way I can convince you other than you taking out a loan and completing your studies at the law school of your choice.

I can only note that the FSF and other large projects require contributors to transfer ownership over the their respective foundations.

I can only ask you to ponder as to why that is so important to them.

It is because the property owner can rescind the licenses he has granted, unless he promised to the licensee that he would not and was paid for that promise.

You can choose not to believe me, and many of you do so because you just really want it not to be so. But it is so. You can study the law and learn it for yourself.

I have tried to teach you as best as I can, but you simply do not know what you do not know. The basis of all this licensing business is property law, learn that. Copyright law extends property law into the realm of the imaginary (which is fixed in a medium), but relies on it none-the-less.

Attached: pretty.jpg (300x233, 20K)

Are you clinically retarded or merely lobotomized?

You just outed yourself as an anti-FOSS agent, samefag.

Please fuck off immediately and never return.

>t. proprietary shill.
I only release works under open source licenses. That goes for my code and for my media creations.

>pitch your shit to some closed source developers,
They already know because they hire lawyers to tell them.

>I'm sure they would be willing to take you up on the scam you're peddling.
There is no scam. I am informing the unwilling of their legal rights. Guess how I know what they are?

>The only one at risk here of being ejected is you, and while I could laugh at seeing you flail around, I actually hope you succeed, because it's less time we have to waste until we can get on to solving the real problem of how to have a kernel that doesn't suck.
Ejected from what? I did not waste my "12 million" dollars worth of coding time on systems software.

I program games. Fun things that live on and on forever, because they are part art, not just machinery.

And I license them to you all, for free.

Just like I inform you of your property rights, for free.

And you do not want to listen, because you wish to convert other peoples property to your own, and then cast them aside.

A gratuity does not bind the property owner. He can and he should rescind the license when wrong is done to him.

You paid him nothing for his forbearance of one of his rights regarding his property, you have no standing to prevent him from exercising his right.

Attached: Yngwie-high-scool.jpg (300x225, 11K)

Private code is superior for programmers

i'd be more inclined to give a damn about your image if more liberals would actually get up and go and vote

There is literally no problem with github charging for some services. It takes money to run and administrate servers. FSF wouldn't exist without people selling their services. Your observation is retarded.

>You just outed yourself as an anti-FOSS agent, samefag.

What happens when you take an OSS programmer and stick him in the field of law for 10 years?

He tends to learn about how the law and what you call "FOSS" licenses interact.

I have heard no arguments from your side other than
>NOOOOO FROTH FROTH!!!!

A license is a temporary grant. It is a loan of a thing, essentially.

If the person loaning you that thing just does it out of the goodness of their heart they can cancel that loan of the thing at any time.

They still own the thing and can recall it.

Code IS a "thing" under the law. The Copyright Act makes it so.

The owner CAN end the license and forbid your further use of the THING.

That is "No CODE XYZ shall not be in linux Version+1".

Then you go to court and tell the court what you paid the owner of CODE XYZ for him to give you a promise that he will not revoke the temporary grant (license).

When you tell the court you paid him nothing, but you still get to use his property, what interest will they find that binds the property owner to let you keep using his property?

Tell us. Tell us all please.

And tell us why the FSF et al all require Property Ower to GIVE (transfer ownership) the code to them, rather than just relying on the license?

Guess why. A non exclusive license is NOT a transfer. The owner CAN take it back unless you paid him not to.

That's how the law works in the US, on this subject.

BTW: do you even know what an agent is? Do you understand agency law or are you just using a word for effect?

Attached: summit-of-Mt-Lykaion.jpg (610x455, 50K)

Both at the same time I see. Amazing. How do you even breathe with so much of your brain missing? Marvelous!

A license, absent an attached interest is revocable by the property owner.

A license is a temporary grant, it is not a transfer of ownership.

If you want an irrevocable grant you pay the property owner to forebear on his default property right. If you do not pay, you have no attached interest that will count against the rights he has in his property.

Attached: flail14.25.1365_001Sept2014.jpg (1100x1956, 92K)

Yes, you as a copyright holder can rescind the license to your code in the linux kernel.

I know my property rights you shill. Much like an SJW pushing a socialist utopia and only getting a new place to provoke wars between factions, the outcome you seek is not what you will get, nor is this the place to try and get it. Eben has been silent lately because of family issues. Now please go and never come back, whatever software it is you make, we never wanted it anyway.

Nigger just your posting style outs you are foreign to this community. Who is paying you?

I really want this to be the case, I really do. But this sounds like some Sovereign Citizen level stuff here.

>2019
>still having an autistic fit over shit from 2018
I want Jow Forums to leave forever.

Here's the thing, though, and what the other side will argue. Attached interest can be anything. Exposure. Your name in the credits. Having your patch integrated into the kernel as a whole. Attached interest does not have to be monetary.

COCs are so last year

Call me when SJWs behead Linus

>doubles down on blaming the left when statistics literally state both sides are becoming more extreme
UMMMMMMMMMM

>Thinks both sides are in power

Actually, this is false. Both sides appear to be becoming more extreme because the left is moving so fast in one direction that the center is widening. Even the extreme right's political positions are pretty much static. Hell, even the Alt Right would be considered basic bitch conservatives in the 1950s. I suggest watching Tim Pool's videos on the subject.

>here, you might be interested in listening to my partisan e-celeb without a degree or a dayjob complain about the other side for clicks
transcend the hegelian, youngun

Tim Pool is a leftist you dolt.

exactly

And even he admits that the left are the ones radicalizing, citing actual studies. The right are simply refusing to move leftward anymore. Both sides are not equally radical. The left has gone completely insane.

missing my point, I'm not defending leftists

You're are making categorically false statements that both sides are becoming more extreme when it is almost entirely the left who is radicalizing. So yes, the left is both the main and only problem right now. And all efforts should be focused on stopping them or at the very least reducing their power and influence.

>Big corporations literally kidnapped linux.
They have influence over the Linux Foundation. They cannot ever own the Linux kernel itself due to the beauty of the GPL.

Our biggest problem is if a new version of the kernel changes the license, in which case, loads of people will just move to a fork.

On the other hand, if it changes to a more permissive license like one of the BSD licenses, or MIT, for example, then we're kinda screwed, because companies will no longer have to contribute their changes back to the mainline kernel.

>They guy that turned down a job offer by steve jobs to work on linux.

If Linus did that, that's a good thing.

I was at a conference with this person once. I replied to one of their tweets with a sincere suggestion, and the conversation went quickly to implying that I was a racist.

It was at that point I stopped responding because I didn't want to lose my job.

The hot ones are all in VRChat looking for ERP and headpats

I hope there's a youtube version of these images

opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7375/is-it-possible-for-linux-developers-to-retroactively-pull-their-code-from-linu

>The answer is: no.
>As a summary: By contributing to the Kernel you agreed to the license: "by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.", further the license indicates that there is no way to withdraw the license as long as the recipient comply with it: "parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance"

>Reddit spacing
you need to go back

>She's a kiwi
Nuke us now. We have been lost to the poos and chinks