Author rescinds GPL licensed code from "Geek Feminists"

What does "post user" mean? Shouldn't it be user-post? But anyway, the point is that you are referring to GNU, not Linux. Linux is simply a kernel that could, and has been, used in a multitude of operating systems. Referring to one operating system as "Linux" is nonsensical.

Today I learned the GPLv2 can be rescinded.

Makes sense now

He's still going to get crucified by this too. Looks like a pretty minor pet project, let's hope his employer doesn't care.

I expect if its brought to court they would rightly assert that GPL (and really all free software licenses) are irrevocable and the author cannot take them away arbitrarily if the downstream devs are following the license conditions. I actually look forward to seeing this litigated because the GPL really needs to be solidified anyway.

Someone needs to make a license which includes something like
"no additonal restrictions may be distributed along with this license. Including, but not limited to: codes of conduct, patent restrictions, contribution agreements, etc."

Didn't trannyboot do this before, but for some shitty reason?

>He's still going to get crucified by this too
A martyr for the cause, I only hope his sacrifice isn't in vain.

>He's still going to get crucified by this too. Looks like a pretty minor pet project, let's hope his employer doesn't care.
Nah. I think that he will be in the clear, and hopefully he gets some revenge on those disgusting useless skanks.

I unironically hope trannies get every white male fired from Silicon Valley.

>I unironically hope trannies get every person with actual talent removed so I can watch Silicon Valley die a slow degenerate death

sounds good to me.

Your time is soon Corey.

this shit happened in 2009, you idiots

Are you a bot or just dense?

you are not smart friend

Clickbait. While you can relicense your own copy if you hold the copyright, the GPL licensed copies will stay GPL licensed in all eternity.

Yes I am.

The CoCkblock supplementary licence.

What does that have to do with anything that's going on with this situation?

> this shit happened in 2009, you idiots

The rescission happened a day or two ago: January 2019.

>Clickbait. While you can relicense your own copy if you hold the copyright, the GPL licensed copies will stay GPL licensed in all eternity.

Incorrect. The rule under the US law regarding licenses is that a gratuitous license is revocable at will.

Why? Because it is not secured. (You didn't pay for the permission, basically).

When you have someone resting their entire counter-claim on "we will plead equitable estopple (or promissory estopple, which is a child of EE)" it means they have no case under the Law and will simply beg the court to hold the other party to some promise that is completely unsuported: ie it's the port of last call "Please Judge, just let us win"

For example?

The situation here is:
We have a gratuitous license that says you can do things (GPLv2+, here). (GPLv3 did not exist at time of publishing)
Programmer did not assign copyright, still owns the copyright to the work.
You did not pay anything to owner, nor do anything he bargained for.
You have no interest secured.

Default rule is a freely-given license is revocable whenever the owner of the property wants to revoke it.

Owner has elected to revoke after women did their thing (but NOT the thing they're designed to do, the other thing) for 10 years in a row (2009-2019).

----

With linux we have:
A gratuitous license. (GPL2) (no +, only GPL2)
Programmers (1000s of them) did not assign their copyrights, they still own them.
You did not pay programmer(s) anything for permission to use under the license, it was freely given.
You have no secured interest.

Default rule is a freely-given license is revocable whenever the owner of the property wants to revoke it.

You CoC them and have them labour under women who hate them. The women do the thing women do (but not the thing they were designed to do), some non-programmer men decide they are women too and join in, lots of non-programmers ruling over and controlling the speech of the programmers. License doesn't even pretend that there is a "future version" of the GPL, only cites GPLv2 (no +).

--

If the first can be revoked, so can the second.

Video drivers

Can someone put this in normal person speak?
who the fuck are these "geek feminists" and why are they so angry at a casino program lol
Also if its so old why not just say its deprecated and tell fags to fork it?

>this bullshit again
No, GPL is not "revokable" at will.
Can you point out where this provision is contained in the license text? No? Thought so, because it isn't there.
If you're the copyright holder, you can re-release the code under a different license, but the older version licensed under GPL still remains for everyone to use.

This guy gets it.

Oh hey it's this "unconditionedwitness" guy again. If you want to discriminate against certain users then just make your software proprietary. Proprietary developers have been doing this for decades and are quite good at it. The GPL is not intended to be used as a weapon against activists.

Check the Google Play Store.

NO he does NOT.

Tell me where, in the GPLv2, does it say that the license is IRREVOCABLE.

And tell me what consideration you paid the copyright owner to secure that term?

Tellme.

TELL ME

The rule in the USA is that a License
ANY license, be it of real, personal, incorporeal property

IS revocable BY the grantor if there is no interest attached.

That is; If PERMISSION TO USE PROPERY IS GIVEN FOR FREE THAT PERMISSION ___IS___ REVOKABLE BY THE OWNER AT HIS WILL.

You people do not believe lawyers. So here's one of your fellow hackers:
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7623095

antocv on Apr 21, 2014 | parent | favorite | on: All software sucks

Yes the GPL as well can be revoked.

The copyright holder grants you a license, and that license can be revoked, wether it be GPL, BSD or Apache or whatever, and it applies to _all_ the softwares the copyright holder has rights to - ie all previous versions.

That is the reason why FSF and GNU encourage copy-right-assignment to the Free Software Foundation - as a kind of guard against any one hacker messing with a project.

BTW this copy-right-reassignment to FSF is similar to how Record Label companies reassign the copyright from their slaves, erm sorry, musicians/artists onto themselves and then govern them.

Here, another one of your hacker friends, gives you the down-lo on us licensing law (property law), since you simply do not believe lawyers, only fellow knowledgeable hackers:
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14556917

dragonwriter on June 14, 2017 [-]

Well, except that gratuitous licenses are (irrespective of their surface terms) revocable at will. Promissory estoppel may mitigate, in some way, the effect of such revocation against people who took action in reliance on a promise of nob-revocation before or without knowledge of the subsequent revocation, but it is far from clear that the Free version will always be free; license terms don't override the governing law.

(Now if there is a Free version under a contracted-for rather than gratuitous license, that's a bit more secure, though there are ways that could go away, too.)

why are you quoting forum posts

Can you cite the actual federal law, or are you just going to sperg out like a retard?
>You people do not believe lawyers.
Nobody believes lawyers. That's why we have courts that decide controversial issues.
>So here's one of your fellow hackers
That's a rather retarded kind of argument from authority, especially since a random post which doesn't cite any sources isn't an authority in any way.
>citing "hacker" "news" in regard to law issues
oh Lord, deliver us from this idiocy
because he's a retard baited by, I presume, Jow Forums and doesn't know anything about anything

Because it's a good post?

last night your mother was good too, doesn't mean I go to her for law advice

>Can you cite the actual federal law, or are you just going to sperg out like a retard?

No because it's common law, not statutory law, you retard.

>69342727
Because you programmers will NOT believe lawyers. Yet you believe eachother.

I __cannot__ teach you the common law (case law made up over centuries). I can't do it. You would have to read the case books at the very least, or just go to law school and learn it yourself.

So from what I understand GPL is meaningless because copyright holder can just choose to revoke the licence at any moment.
Or is GPLv3 supposed to fix that?
Doesn't that mean that Linus can at any moment revoke Linux's licence and make it proprietary? Or in that case I guess all kernel contributors would have to agree on it? Or Linus could just revoke the rights for his part of the code.
At least I can understand what my mom says (most of the times) where lawyer lagoon is just incomprehensible.

Ok, you want federal law.

We'll start here
.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html

>201. Ownership of copyright1
>(a) Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.

Understand? You make it you own it. (unless you're a wage-slave, see section 201-2)

>(d) Transfer of Ownership.—
>(1) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law, and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Understand that "any means of conveyance or by operation of law"

That is where we move from statutory law to common law.

That is where your ability to license works comes from. Licensing is part of the common law of property. And the rule is that a bare license, a gratuitious license, can be ended by the grantor when he wishes, regardless of the "terms".

The reason is because there is no contract. You did not pay for those terms, thus you cannot bind the property owner to them. It's his property he can tell you when and where you can use it and decide you can't use it one day.

Now, with _commercial_ software: you paid consideration FOR the licensing terms, NOT for the software: they did NOT sell you the software (a transfer). They sold you permission. Because you purchased whatever rescission clause there is in the license, the courts then hold the owner to only use that term against you.

If you did not give consideration (and no, "obeying the license" is not consideration: you have NO right to use the property without the consent of the owner, you are not forgoing a legal right by not violating his property rights by disobeying his use instructions), the owner is not bound by the terms he put out.

This guy does't get it.

You're retarded.

>So from what I understand GPL is meaningless because copyright holder can just choose to revoke the licence at any moment.

You understand correctly; however if a licensee violates the terms that is still copyright infringement and the owner can sue the licensee. The licensee, however, cannot hold the owner to the terms of the license because the licensee has not (effectively) purchased those terms to secure them.

This goes for the GPLv3 aswell.
The GPLv3 attempts to give the licensee an _equitable_ argument of promissory estopple (a child of equitable estopple), so one can pray to the judge "just let me win, it's not FAIR, HE PROMISED".

promissory estopple, however, was "developed" to "explain" why people who promised to gift land and money to charities had to fulfill those promises even though the charities did absolutely nothing for the promisor. It's just simply an exception to the default rule that the Judge can decide if he feels like it (or really if She feels like it: because women run things now). Other times promissory estopple came into effect is when a family member promised a kid they would give them 1000 to buy a car, kid bought a car, family memeber said "fuck you", kid sued because he's a piece of shit... the judges felt bad for the kid, forced the father to pay the kid. Another area is where a family member promises offspring that they will get land, offspring then builds crap on the land, family member says na, offspring begs court to "fix" this non-existent contract.
...

...

No such promises not to revoke exist in the GPLv2. Even with v3, it's still not a contract, it is a bare license with nothing on the otherside securing an interest, so by the default rule it is revocable at any time: don't like it: talk with the programmer(s) and pay them.

>Doesn't that mean that Linus can at any moment revoke Linux's licence and make it proprietary?
Yes. Guess what is probably in the contracts with the Linux Foundation that pays him 1.4 million a year though... (which they could enforce against him, or atleast stop giving him the million)

>Or in that case I guess all kernel contributors would have to agree on it?
Nope.

> Or Linus could just revoke the rights for his part of the code.
Yes. Any kernel contributor that owns his own code can. (IE: any of the hobbyists). The companies could too.

Guess why the FSF requires you to sign over your copyrights to them before they will accept anything (and they always have had it set up this way from the beginning)

>You're retarded.

Explain what I got wrong, exactly.
What exactly do you think a software license is. Tell me shit head.

One of the 5 fundamental rights given to you by free software is the right to revoke other people's rights if they violate the code of conduct.

this is the entire purpose of mass consumer 'nerd culture' and has been for like a very long time. welcome to social engineering, bucko!

>69342986
Oh they added a new one.. :P
Alot of programmers seem to think that the FSF's utterances and "4 freedoms" are binding US law.

I try to explain the law, they say I'm wrong.
Never how or why. Just I'm wrong.

Maybe if they'd go to school they'd learn otherwise.

So again, nothing except vague references to common law.
And no, copyright itself or its transfer doesn't come into this at all, that's a different beast.
more armchair lawyering fanfiction
>Explain what I got wrong, exactly.
Everything.
>What exactly do you think a software license is. Tell me shit head.
It's a contract. This has been upheld, especially with regards to GPL, multiple times by the courts. Yes, you're not the first moron to challenge the GPL.
Shithead.

>So again, nothing except vague references to common law.
I am not going to sit here citing all the cases that create the law of licensing in the USA.

>It's a contract. This has been upheld, especially with regards to GPL, multiple times by the courts. Yes, you're not the first moron to challenge the GPL.

Nope. The contract that was upheld in the printer driver case was the preliminary writing "you can either pay us or use the GPL". The violator chose not to pay, so the court decided that damages could be sought based on the "you pay us" price, or that damages could be sought under copyright law, for violating the GPL.

>And no, copyright itself or its transfer doesn't come into this at all, that's a different beast.

Yes it does. That section in the copyright act is what authorizes you to treat it, effectively, as property, and to alienate it as property.

when shit like this happens it is quite literally someone with borderline personality disorder or some other kind of oppositional-defiant derrived mental illness trying to impose their reality on other people in a stint of mania and has nothing to do with actually accomplishing something.

this is why the nerds who care about the code of conduct are so fucking confused at these trannies because they aren't acting like rational actors in search of a goal, autists dont understand people who operate entirely on 'feels'

>The GPL is not intended to be used as a weapon against activists.

which is exactly why a bunch of marxists are trying to weaponize the GPL in the interests in some kind of Trotskyist plot and explicitly paint their actions as that of a revolutionary vanguard party for a communist revolution

the reason they taught us about senator mccarthy and the Red Scare was a joke in school was because they were preparing us for what is happening right now

Anyway it is somewhat simple:

A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable.

That is the rule.

>not using this license
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Will not be re-licensed under any GPL version or similar copyleft license.
4. The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil.
5. Shall not be used by American Military, Intelligence, or Security
Departments or any of their (sub-)*contractors or bodies with information
sharing agreements with them.
6. Shall not be used by any holder of Israeli Citizenship, Israeli Government
Body, Israeli Company, or denier of Israeli war crimes or Israeli crimes
against humanity.
7. Shall not be used by any subscriber of Wahhabism and/or Salafism.
8. Shall not be used by any Anti-theist, Anarchist, Communist, or Feminist.
9. Shall not be used by anyone who supports, advocates, seeks, performs, or
assists abortion.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND
ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

>lol ur code dumb
>take that back OR!!!11
If that fag doesn't want others to use his shit, why GPL it? What a huge faggot. It doesn't matter if it's a tranny, a skinhead or whatever person you don't like, if you exclude someone, your stuff is not free software and you're a faggot cocksucking whiny pussy.

A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable.

Want to know why? Go to law school.

Enjoy your proprietary forks.

Won't hold up in court. I would rehash the SFLC and Conservancy's position on this but you will just dismiss it for the same nonsense reasons you've been posting this whole thread. If you want to do pro bono legal consulting for proprietary software companies, this is not the place to do it. They too would even find it questionable that your entire motivation in this seems to be to "destroy the code of conduct" which is not a contract or a license and doesn't affect you in any way.

Imagine you built a building with your own hands.
20 years later women who do not build buildings, and men pretending to be women (who also do not build buildings) throw you out of the building you built.

Would you not want to destroy the building with them inside of it?

This analogy is retarded and doesn't reflect the situation. Go away.

Cite references applicable to this situation or stfu. You done anything except whine while saying no no no.

>The building got bigger so more people could fit in = I am getting thrown out of the building
No

The SFLC conservancy's argument is to construe as an no-revocation promise:
a clause in the GPLv2 that explains that if an up-stream licensee suffers automatic revocation because the up-stream licensee violated the license, that down-stream licensees do not in-turn lose their license.

It is saying that a break in the chain does not cut off the sub-licensees.

(And to then claim promissory estopple).

Their argument is spurious and was debunked on the LKML 5 hours after publication.

I'm first (you)
so basically the author of the program is being put down by politically inclined mentally unstable losers?
or is the author a mentally unstable loser who is being "attacked" by normal people.
and again, if this is 10y/o why does anyone give a shit?
and how does the CoC fit into this?

Ruled over by the do-nothing women lacking seniority AND thrown out of the building.

Bruce Perens and Matthew Garrett were saying how the old men were "not required anymore" and should be kicked to the curb. Even though they built the whole thing.

Level up to GPLv3+ already.
What's up with this v2 nonsense.

Attached: 1547238398266.jpg (512x422, 29K)

The linux kernel programmers, no matter who explains it to them, no matter how many times, continue to believe that they have no ability to revoke.

One of the arguments is "no one has ever done it" (Not true: one guy did years ago, and the distros did remove his previously GPL'd software).

So here we are, to show them, that yes, the owner can revoke a gratuitous license.

Their code, their choice. A gift with obligations is no gift at all. GPL just isn't free at all.

Linux kernel is GPLv2 exclusive.

Both are gratuitous licenses, and by the default rules are revocable by the grantor regardless of their terms.

The terms do NOT control how the owner uses his property. The code of his, on your computer, still is his property. He can decide you can't modify and distribute it anymore at any time.

UNLESS, you purchase from him a term that says otherwise (the purchase price can be money, or service, or a forbearance of a legal right that you have, as-long as that is what the owner wants)

Those are enough to protect the sub-licensees. And if you brought this to court against the direct licensees, you would have no case. This has already been tested in court and like I said is not worth rehashing. I could also say your arguments are spurious and have been debunked, but I won't do this because it's pointless.

>Switch statements should be used where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a successive nature
>for mos efficient use of the jump table that is generated from said code.
Well TIL. I never use them because of the bloated syntax, I guess I'll have to now.

Imagine you feel so short-dicked around some random trannies that your fantasy tells you that 'your code is dumb' babble equals to 'being thrown out of a fucking building'.

Attached: 1547381706173.jpg (470x639, 49K)

Yet another shitshow for FOSS licenses. Is there any other licence that is so unclear what it actually means as GPL?

>Their code, their choice. A gift with obligations is no gift at all. GPL just isn't free at all.

Technically, in law world, the GPLv2 doesn't have obligations, since you have no legal right to make and distribute derivative works.

The control over derivative works is a right that the copyright holder has.

So "you MAY distribute derivative works of this work as long as they are not under any more restrictive terms" is not a legal detriment against you: it is giving you more rights than you previously had.

So still a gratuity, this GPL

who cares about linux? how is this relevant here?

>The building got bigger = I am being ruled over and thrown out of the building
Again, no

>Bruce Perens
>Matthew Garrett
Neither of those people are kernel developers

GPLv2 has no clear definition of derivative work.

Stop posting.

Stop being a short sighted faggot.

>Silicon Valley affects many normies
>get all competent people fired
>all Coc loving trannies
>everything fucks up
>silicon Valley companies crash with no survivors
>Jews btfo
>normies realize trannies are retarded
>some other place can be setup to be the replacement

Does anyone else feel dirty

If it had been tested in court you would have given us a citation. This would be a case of first impression.

Once the licensees have been given notice of the revocation, if they then violate the copyright, they can be sued.

Tell us why you think the owner would lose?
That clause in the GPLv2 is NOT a no-revocation promise. And either way you did not pay consideration for it.

Your whole case relies on the hope that consideration truly is no longer needed, that promissory estopple can be used to enforce any un-backed promise, and that there was such a promise made. I know Calamari and Perillo like to make such a claim, please support your suggestion.

Linux?

Why?

You look to caselaw, not the GPL, for that.

i believe you

>But since most of you retards are foreveralones that would sell yourselves just for a chance to be near a vagina, none of you will to stand up to the hordes.
>implying any of those "geek women" actually have vaginas

>An anonymous reader writes:
>Reportedly, the author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.

Wow journalism is almost like Jow Forums shitposting now, thanks!

As far as I'm aware that definition is different from what RMS and FAQ claims. This is what is making it unclear. See part about linked libraries.

I won't be giving citations because

1) I am not a lawyer (and neither are you)
2) This is not court

So your bait won't work here. Do your own research. Then if you are that confident then just take it to court and see what happens. If you have that much of a problem with the code of conduct there are better ways to resolve that than wasting your time and money on frivolous lawsuits. Perhaps try discussing things civilly instead of acting like an SJW and playing the victim card claiming you are being oppressed because someone made a twitter post you didn't like.