The GPL is revocable

Remeber everyone:

Illusory contracts are unenforceable.

Gratis licenses are revocable.

The GPL _CAN_ be "taken back" by the OWNER.

It is a permission, and if you didn't pay, you don't own ANYTHING.

Attached: 1546325839308.jpg (373x448, 41K)

To everyone ITT:
MikeeUSA is just copypasting his samefaggotry from 8ch. Ignore him.

>"Illusionary contracts are enforceable"

Nice contracts 101 you got there.

MikeeUSA is a lawyer and knows what he's talking about.

Notice how on the second strike at the apple the male RedHat lawyers stepped away from "No you can't do it at all" (which the female lawyer tried to suggest, but was careful to couch her language) to 'Only unemployed INCEL Terrorists would have the balls to revoke, since they won't be blackballed from the industry they are not present in! No worrys, We'll just threaten any WAGIES who own copyrights!'

> opensource.com/article/19/2/cla-problems

>License revocation: Some CLA advocates warn of the prospect that a contributor may someday attempt to revoke a past license grant. To the extent that the concern is about largely judgment-proof individual contributors with no corporate affiliation, it is not clear why an Apache-style CLA provides more meaningful protection against this outcome compared to the use of an open source license. And, as with so many of the legal risks raised in discussions of open source legal policy, this appears to be a phantom risk. I have heard of only a few purported attempts at license revocation over the years, all of which were resolved quickly when the contributor backed down in the face of community pressure.

>A non-exclusive license IS a transfer of rights, trust me, it's not simply a use license (permission from owner without transfer)!

Nice Copyright 101 you got there.

>14 posts
>3 posters

Attached: 1551862148281.png (429x387, 57K)

And yes: I am a lawyer.

If you are the copyright owner of a GPL'd work, you can revoke the license at your will from any gratis-licensee: that is anyone who did not pay.

And that's most of them.

>7 billion people
>Some lesser amount of lawyers on earth than 7 billion

Attached: lain321565.jpg (184x184, 5K)

>I am a licensed attorney.
Are you user's lawyer? Is this legal advice?

It has been months and months.

Not one person has successfully refuted me.

That an illusory contract is not enforceable against the grantor.

That gratis licenses are revocable by the grantor.

There's alot of hand waving and "please don't do this" though, and quotes of Stallman and random IT "news anchors".

But when you talk to other lawyers it's: simple: no pay, no interest.

If you did not pay for license, by law you have no attached interest. It's only by the grace of the owner of the article in question that you are permitted to use, distribute, etc the article. That permission can be rescinded at any time by he who granted said permission for the lofty sum of nothing at all.

I'd likely never take user on as a client, since user is completely hostile to any help offered.

It is pro-bono preliminary legal information offered to edify programmer-copyright-holders: so that they know that it is their option to contact a Copyright Attorney in their area.

The fact is they are being taken advantage of, their property is effectively being converted, and they are being threatened with expulsion from their own projects by a hostile takeover from outsiders.

Programmers who are ignorant of their rights are frustrated. Programmers who understand their rights as copyright holders simply see an opportunity to deftly exert leverage and receive renumeration from those who wish to have a change in the distribution terms (as is proper: if licensee doesn't like the terms he is free to seek other terms from the copyright holder).

Sadly there seem to be few of the former.

Either way: I do it for free, and to no benefit for myself. I just hate that Programmers are so foolish to think that because they know about programming, that they know ALL fields.

Hopefully they will be dispelled of this notion and seek competent legal advice, in their jurisdiction, as a bloc.

Remeber: Unemployed NEET opensource programmers: you didn't GIVE anything away. You LICENSED your work out to others: that is you gave mere PERMISSION.

You can revoke that from those who paid you absolutely nothing. They have somewhere around nothing to stand on.

Attached: tsukasa.jpg (778x704, 80K)

If there's no issue outside of publiperception to changing the license from GPL to whatever on a project where you're the only contributor / only your code is currently being used I don't see any good reason why you could change the license on partial contributions thus making it incompatible with the original project.

They really need to do it as a bloc to be most strategically effective. I want you to make that clear to them.

Also immediately sending a "Cease and Desist" letter off the bat is NOT the way to go, as the the opponent will then rush to the court for a declaratory judgment on their legal rights (which is allowed in copyright cases). (In my opinion)

There has to be strategy to the thing.

But to get there they have to know that they actually own code they wrote and didn't sign away, and what a non-exclusive gratis license from them to X actually is.

>actually own code they wrote and didn't sign away
well you can still do whatever with your code, but you also gave it away to others who can do whatever (within the limits of the license)

GPL proponents see an issue, their issue is with US law however.

They want a mechanism whereby a free license is irrevocable by the copyright owner.

They (somewhat) HAVE such a mechanism: donate the code to a nonprofit who then republishes the code under the license and is sure to not revoke.

They refuse to use this mechanism (even though it's been the only way the FSF actually accepts code).

They gain a benifit that Many more people are willing to publish under the GPL.

The detriment is that any copyright owner can later end those gratis licenses (and the vast majority of the licenses from owner -> licensee are gratis. Only business bother to pay the copyright owners anything (and they're likely safe)).

Wrong. I am NOT asking you.

I _KNOW_ the US law. I am an attorney.

YOU the COPYRIGHT HOLDER can REVOKE free licenses WHENEVER YOU WANT.

YOU the COPYRIGHT HOLDER are NOT bound to the license, ONLY the licensee is. UNLESS the licensee PAYED YOU for the licensee (in which case it becomes a copyright license _contract_, and you can use contract law principals to hold the grantor to the bargain you struck with him)

Without you PAYING there IS NO BARGAIN. THERE IS NO RIGHTS ON LICENSEES END, only permission, which can be ended at ANY time by he who legally granted the PERMISSION.

NOTHING WAS _GIVEN_

Licensee does NOT own the code.
Licensee has PERMISSION to USE the code, which can be REVOKED.

gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty
I'll take words of actual lawyers over some anonymous larper on Jow Forums

>The detriment is that any copyright owner can later end those gratis licenses (and the vast majority of the licenses from owner -> licensee are gratis. Only business bother to pay the copyright owners anything (and they're likely safe)).
You have yet to explain why anyone should care. GPL revocation is technically possible, but exceedingly rare because it's easier and faster to just pack your shit and leave to make a fork/derivative project while letting the original exist.
I release code under freetard licenses because I want other people to have it.

I know of two project that were GPL and changed back to some other license one of those including a separate licensing deal with a 3rd party even so whatever you linked doesn't hold much water in reality.
Redream and Higan / bSNES in case you want to know more.

>Yes, you can but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. It doesn't work back in time so you can "fork" code from the point before the licence was "revoked" and it's still GPL (you simply cannot use updates or code Addition from original author/ source since they're now non-gpl)

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
I am a US attorney (not german, german law is different because their contract principals are based purely on promises and no consideration (payment))

In the US you____CAN_____ put the genie back in the bottle: because you never let it out.

That code you gave PERMISSION for others to use, those "promises" to "not revoke" are ONLY operable AGAINST you the grantor IF those PROMISES 1) Exist and 2) were PAID FOR.

A promise that was NOT paid for is an ILLUSORY PROMISE and "creates" nothing.

So you are just fucking _WRONG_
>It regards to the Linux kernel it's the same. However you will have a Problem if someone "revokes" the licence and is maintainer at the same time, or singular contributor in a field nobody else haw the know-how. You'd have "dead code" then.

The linux coders who own their copyright can put the genie back in the bottle; they can REVOKE the license to their GPL'd code, and it can NOLONGER be used in ANY new versions of linux. No DERIVATIVES of that code could be used either.

If one wishes to be strict, PAST versions of linux WITH THAT CODE may have be be removed aswell.

They ___OWN___ that code. It might be on YOUR server, but they own it.

Now some consumer protections might kick in for the innocent consumer, regarding past versions, but knowledgeable entities... they get less leeway generally.

yes but that faq is about making a previously public thing exclusive
the interpretation being "lol only X can use it now"
which is not possible if somebody had it distributed to them under GPL previously

Because people who prevent malicious code changes get metoo'd, that's why.

The important word here is exclusive, relicensing or releasing GPL licensed code with different licenses is possible, what's not possible is forbidding the use of GPL licensed code just because you changed your mind or got your feelings hurt

>I am a US attorney
Let's see some proof

>even so whatever you linked doesn't hold much water in reality.
The FSF has actual lawyers, you're just an anonymous larper

> No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

Not a legal argument, and I already addressed this in threads past.

The fact is the public does NOT have a RIGHT to use the code. The Code was NOT placed in the Public Domain.

The Code was licensed under terms the copyright owner chose, it was not TRANSFERED, it was not GIFTED.

Since the license is un-renumerated: that is it is offered for no payment, no-reciprocal duty is created on the part of the GRANTOR regarding ANY term.

You paid nothing, you get nothing.

The permission to use Owners property can be withdrawn at any time.

And it SHOULD be if such is in the interest of the Owner.

And I'm an actual lawyer btw.

Attached: Ononoki.Yotsugi.full.jpg (500x707, 271K)

Call us when the FSF uses said lawyers to defend GPL outside of PR cases.

Wrong.

The GPL is a non-exclusive license, so the licensee doesn't actually hold any interest regarding the various rights of a copyright holder, and second he didn't consideration to the Owner so he doesn't hold any contractual rights against the Owner.

He has exactly what he gave to the Owner: nothing.

Very fair.

It's revocable.

Sorry I'd rather not be murdered or #metoo'd by a GPL nutbag.

There's no way for me to anonymously prove to you my identity and credentials without being triangulated except for explaining tirelessly, to you, the law.

You seem obsessed with the idea that you have to pay for something to acquire it, ever heard of free gifts? Is this something that's alien to your miserable lonely existence?

Well then you'll have to excuse me for not falling for your bullshit

They probably eat patent trolls like you for breakfast.

No, people who develop for webshit get metoo'd, because SJW are attracted to webshit like flies to literal shit.
Do you expect me to start using proprietary licenses for something that will probably never happen to me?

Sure you can disagree with GPL requirements
Then give everything back, Jamal, you are not allowed to use GPL software

brainlet here but what does this mean? like if i use some code and the creator sees that I support trump he can make me stop using his code?

Attached: sudo-touch-gf-1545867902543.png (866x635, 236K)

Depends on the license of the code, if it's GPL then no, you're not breaking GPL's term by supporting Trump.

>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 and corp wish to blow up your ass.

Attached: tsg.jpg (1024x728, 64K)

Non-exclusive LICENSES are not gifts.

You have the power to transfer your exclusive rights under copyright in whole or in part to another singular entity, the GPL does not accomplish this.

The "Contributor License Agreement" (which is actually a transfer of copyright ownership) the FSF demands you sign when you wish to contribute code to them DOES accomplish this, which is WHY they require it!

The licensee isn't what is licensed though, the code is licensed. It can be revoked for future publications only.

>brainlet here but what does this mean? like if i use some code and the creator sees that I support trump he can make me stop using his code?

If you have a free license the owner can revoke. You have no recourse. It was no gift, only permission to use, if you violate the permission you violate copyright. He can also rescind previously given permission, if you then violate the NEW terms ("fuck you"), you violate copyright.

Just like if you enter onto someone property after they ask you to leave, or if you refuse to leave. Just because you had previous permission does not mean that permission is a perpetuity.

They may even say "YOU CAN BE ON MY LAND FOREVER, JIMBO BOB". And then kick you off. It's an illusary promise.

Now, if you're what would otherwise be an HEIR of that ESTATE... well then you have some protections. You could claim promissory estopple if you built some buildings on the land KNOWING you were given it, however this is related to the ancient Livery of Seizen and has nothing to do with Copyright Law.

Second if you were working for THE MAN, and put in ton's o work, and relied on a promise of him to pay you for that work, but for some reason the contract failed (not in writing while being for something that couldn't be performed in a year, for lots o money) the court MAY "save" the contract by a promessory estopple doctrine so you're not out all that work.

Notice how these involve exclusive 1 to 1 "contracts" for specific goods (real property) or services however where the "Little guy" would be screwed even though he did the work, or a heir would be disposessed by the estate after taking posession of it?

FSF wants you to think a gratis licensee of a non-exclusive licensed work is the same as those.

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

The FSF requires you to do this before contributing to the GNU project so they can defend you from individuals that break GPL's terms, why are you spreading lies now? Also you don't have to transfer copyright in order to share your code, you can relicense your code to something else but you can't forbid people from using the GPL licensed version, there's nothing in the GPL that would allow anyone to commit this idiocy.

based schizoposter

The only way to get your license revoked is by breaking the license's terms.

Wrong. It is the licensee that is licensed.

It is permission directly from the Copyright holder TO the licensee to use the property. It is the licensee who is licensed. It's simply permission, not a transfer.

You're thinking of exclusive copyright license contracts for a period of time where the licensee can do as he wishes with the property for a period of time. These are common for works of authorship such as screenplays, books, etc. They have little overlap with gratis licenses of the type we are talking of.

The "for future publication only" idea ties in directly with the consideration given for such licenses. When you buy a distribution license, the courts found it unfair to not allow you to sell allready-printed back issues after the sunset of the license-contract, where the contracts were silent on the issue. A key is that you paid for those terms, and the court in those cases construed the contracts in the favor of the paying licensee.

No, it's published under a license. If you publish a book you can't revoke the sale/gift/license of that book. It's got nothing to do with copyright. If your publication has additional copyright terms attached like redistribution, that goes with it. You can't un-public-domain a thing for instance.

Repeat it all you want.

Free, non-exclusive licenses are revocable by the grantor for any or no reason whatsoever. At any time.

The foundation for a defense against revocation of a license is the existance of a contractual defense: "I paid for these licensing terms, therefor since the grantor benefited via the payment he bargained for and I payed (and it must be something), I can rely on the promises made in the instrument: that is what I paid good ready muney for". Suffice to say: nothing gets you nothing.

Gratis licenses are rescindable.
They are simply DICTATS that you MUST follow to be allowed to use the FREE STUFF _AT_ALL_. However they are not SUFFICIENT to sustain your use of the FREE STUFF: the continued assent or lack of dissent on the part of the OWNER of the FREE STUFF is ALSO required.

If the Owner doesn't want you using his code, and you did not create a contract that says you can, You can't use his code onces he tells you so.

And "NOTHING" is quite lacking in value to support a contract. So you're good and well fucked.

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

Use isn't even part of copyright, sorry.

>
No, it's published under a license. If you publish a book you can't revoke the sale/gift/license of that book. It's got nothing to do with copyright. If your publication has additional copyright terms attached like redistribution, that goes with it. You can't un-public-domain a thing for instance.

Wrongo wrongo wrongo.
When you publish a physical copy of a book, the _CONSUMER_ gains title to that PHYSICAL copy. The courts do not allow you to rescind that copy.

The consumer does NOT gain Title or Copyright to the CONTENTS of the book.

It is sale/gift of the Physical Pages / CD etc. NOT the copyright.

If you CHOSE to license a person, for free, to DISTRIBUTE copys of the work also, and make derivatives, you CAN revoke that PERMISSION.

You can't take their physical copy back, but you can bar them from distributing it further, REGARDLESS of the "terms", if the license is a free license that they payed you nothing for.

It isn't because intellectual property isn't real and good fucking luck trying to kill my freedom of speech.

>No, it's published under a license. If you publish a book you can't revoke the sale/gift/license of that book. It's got nothing to do with copyright. If your publication has additional copyright terms attached like redistribution, that goes with it. You can't un-public-domain a thing for instance.

Wrongo wrongo wrongo.
When you publish a physical copy of a book, the _CONSUMER_ gains title to that PHYSICAL copy. The courts do not allow you to rescind that copy.

The consumer does NOT gain Title or Copyright to the CONTENTS of the book.

It is sale/gift of the Physical Pages / CD etc. NOT the copyright.

If you CHOSE to license a person, for free, to DISTRIBUTE copys of the work also, and make derivatives, you CAN revoke that PERMISSION.

You can't take their physical copy back, but you can bar them from distributing it further, REGARDLESS of the "terms", if the license is a free license that they payed you nothing for.

If the book is licensed to be distributed then its licensed to be distributed. The license terms are set in stone for that copy of that book. Aside from regular fair use, they can use it for whatever they could at any time of ownership.

>I have the right to use pirated software I downloaded, Use isn't part of copyright.

Believe what you want shit-for-brains.

You can't copy the software from the HDD to the ram without good cause to make it inter-operate with the computer (and perform the task you PURCHASED the software to perform). Once your license is pulled you have no good cause. Sorry but if you didn't bother to pay, the consumer protections the courts decided upon in the 90s regarding copyrighted code will leave you wanting.

Copyright and The Modern Digital Age 101, comon. It's like you never bothered to learn.

Attached: lainimg378.jpg (900x679, 176K)

>If the book is licensed to be distributed then its licensed to be distributed. The license terms are set in stone for that copy of that book. Aside from regular fair use, they can use it for whatever they could at any time of ownership.

Not if they paid no consideration for it. Sorry moron. All they can do is traffic in their physical copy due to the first sale doctrine.

You literally have the right to use pirated software that does not require you to agree to license terms upon use. Good luck finding any of that.

If i were to download MIT textbooks and print them out, they'd forever be CC0 or whatever they do. They'd forever be CC0 on my computer, too. That's how licenses work, the terms under which they are distributed. If they later revoked that license I couldn't download a new copy but the old copy will always be what it was.

The FSF would have you believe that an illusory promise is binding in the USA.

It is not.

If you were not paid for the license, the license does not bind YOU the Copyright Owner. It ONLY binds the free-taker.

What we commonly know as "free loaders"

If you choose to publish a BOOK under the GPL, ONLINE, for 0 dollars.

You _CAN_ end the licenses at ANY time.
Those having revoked licenses MAY NOT THEN DISTRIBUTE NOR MODIFY YOUR BOOK ANYLONGER. THEY MAY NOT DISTRIBUTE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF IT EITHER.

However, if you also published the book on a second site, but required $20 per license, using the GPL, in that case those guys would still beable to rely on the paid-for licensing terms.

Attached: 1523693303016.png (1163x1600, 1.22M)

>gpl is revocable
2 yes, 3 idk I'd have to look at because things were added to cover stuff like this which kinda points to the earlier being revocable.

I wish I had critical code in the kernel, id revoke it just to cause a dramafest.

Attached: That sounds like blogging! _ Pulp Fiction Re-Imagined with Crudely Drawn Animals.png (400x397, 172K)

2 isn't either.

Nope.

Consumer protection laws would simply not require you to destroy those copies on request from the Copyright holder. That is all.

You would no-longer have the right to redistribute under the MIT or CC0 after the Copyright holder canceled your gratis license.

It IS "retroactive". The REASON is because you DO NO OWN THE DATA. The COPYRIGHT OWNER DOES. Really: you do not own the _DISTRIBUTION_MODIFICATION_ALIENATION_(ETC)_ Rights: The COPYRIGHT OWNER DOES.

And BECAUSE it was _NOT_ and _EXCLUSIVE_ license, but instead a NON-EXCLUSIVE license, the distribution etc rights are not _TRANSFERED_ (for whatever time) but are instead simply _allowed_ by fiat of the COPYRIGHT owner.

Then also since you have no contractual claim, in addition to no exclusive control over one of the 4 rights under copyright, you have no claim against the copyright owner.

Both 2 and 3 (and 1, and MIT, and BSD) are all revocable if you did not pay the copyright owner for the loicense.

You can believe WHATEVER you want.

You _ARE_ wrong.

I am a licensed attorney, just trying to help you revoke your gratis copyright licenses, for free.

Attached: reivsasuka1534564092002.jpg (600x632, 43K)

So what license do we use instead?

Microsoft shill looking to fling shit at his only adversary. The government needs to step in and break Microsoft.

The GPL is created in the spirit of sharing, parroting "you have to pay to have any rights over something" over and over is irrelevant and is frankly indicative of your serious lack of brainpower.

You cannot change the license except under the license terms. It has nothing to do with copyright ownership. Copyright owner is allowed to set terms and their terms are what the license is/was/will forever be at granting. That's why people INCLUDE terms about changing the license in their licenses, because you have to.

Paying doesn't change anything. Payment has nothing to do with copyright. You're probably not going to be licensed long giving out shit advice like that.

The GPL is a copyleft license. The payment terms are internal to it: to licence any modifications as GPL.
That is the clear purpose of the GPL, and the courts may well hold any user to that purpose.

>we
Use a closed source license and don't use GPL code then faggot

The one, the only, "surefire" way to toss out YOUR ability to revoke is to transfer the copyright to say, the FSF, (or some other entity).

Which is what they require you to do if you want to contribute to their projects. GEE I WONDER WHY?

And even that is not surefire because THEY .. could revoke themselves from everybody. However then you could sue them in some states for misuse of the grant (NY and California for example) where you can attach conditions to grants to non-profits.

Oh and they're a non-profit so they can claim they're a charity and have some extra protections against take-backs (promises to gift things to charities must be kept for "public policy" reasons, say the courts for the last 100 years)

Now you know why the FSF is a 501(c)(3) too!

Itsn't it great being a lawyer!

And yes, when they give you other "reasons", they're not telling the whole truth: the main reason is to prevent you from revoking your license as the Copyright Owner.

(The MPL etc proport to be contracts, language-wise, but pretending there is consideration and there actually being bargained-for-consideration are two different things. Not all courts will accept bullshit consideration (which is slightly more than the old licenses offer).. infact... free is free nomatter how you slice it)

Attached: anime1530517787765.jpg (480x671, 64K)

/thread

>are all revocable if you did not pay the copyright owner for the loicense.
I paid the linux devs once so they can't pull this shit on me and if they do I'll simply release their code free of charge.

>the main reason is to prevent you from revoking your license as the Copyright Owner.
And why would I even want to do that? I get literally no benefit from it. If I was enough of a dick, I wouldn't make my code FOSS to begin with.

GPL isn't US law.

> The GPL is a copyleft license. The payment terms are internal to it: to licence any modifications as GPL.
> That is the clear purpose of the GPL, and the courts may well hold any user to that purpose.

"Acceptance" of a license as "payment" for the license is not suitable as consideration. If you want to know why refer to the previous discussion on the LKML and openbsd mailing lists as to why. Spout your bullshit elsewhere, free is not even a peppercorn.

You're presuming that judges can't judge, when it's their job to do so.

Lay idiot saying it so doesn't make it so.
The FSF requires copyright assignment for a reason. And a very good reason at that. And always has.

>GEE I WONDER WHY?
gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
Educate yourself for once, brainlet-kun.

Revoking copyright isn't revoking a license. Copyright isn't needed to sublicense, either. Only sufficient licensing terms.

FSF does some shady shit involving GPL enforcement, questionable settlement terms. That's got fuck all to do with GPL though.

A wise move, and related to the reason companies pay RedHat.

It furnishes atleast an equitable defense.

Not a defense-at-law vs linux programmers no party to the agreement who are independent copyright holders, but atleast something.

RH might even try to claim joint authorship of the Linux kernel to indemnify a large client even. It is QUITE a stretch, and current jurisprudence doesn't support such a claim, but there's a colorable issue of law there.

Again, payments have nothing to do with any of this, by licensing your code with GPL you're letting others make use of it as long as they follow its terms, just because you got your feelings hurt doesn't suddenly give you the right to take your code back.

If they were enough of a dick to toss you out of your own project, you might consider a counter attack of sorts.

I'm an actual lawyer though, unlike you larping faggots.

I read all their bullshit long ago.
You're a white guy aren't you.

I know your type. Born slaves, wagies, workers.
Always accepting the half truth.

The assignment allows them to bring suit.
But it is not why they require it.

It's so you can't torpedo their projects by revoking your "contribution".

If you give up your rights/code it's not your project though. Worst you can do is hope nobody forks, ever, for all eternity.

WTF better go proprietary

>toss you out of your own project
It's my project. I can just fork it. If no one wants my fork, I was probably being a complete retard.
License revocation is time, effort and possibly money wasted just to spite people, and probably destroy my reputation.

>If you give up your rights/code it's not your project though. Worst you can do is hope nobody forks, ever, for all eternity.

But you have NOT given up your rights to your code.

This is what I am trying to teach you stupid white pieces of shit, and that really is what you are: Stupid. White (mutt). Pieces of shit.

You think everything is Buy and Sell. Give or Take.

Your betters, those who are smarter than you (and those who have you chasing after women and trying to murder anyone who would say "why not the nice girls instead") are rich off of you mistaking a LEASE for a SALE, and a LENDING for a GIFT.

These code licenses are NOT gifts. They are NOT transfers of the underlying rights. They are _simply_ FREE allowances to innumerable (but identifiable) third parties to USE the property.

The OWNER has NOT alienated the property _AT ALL_. He still owns FULL COPYRIGHT over it, full discretion as to distribution, derivation, copying, etc.

He has simply said: "Here white boi, you fucking woman worshiping retard, out of the kindness of my heart, I am allowing you to use my lawnmower".

He didn't give it to you.

zdnet.com/google-amp/article/no-you-cant-take-open-source-code-back/

I'm an actual lawyer though, unlike you larping faggots.

We're talking about FSF there. Also:
>full discretion as to distribution, etc.
except where this is contrary to previous discretion.

Resorting to ad homs already? Is your brain running out of gas? I suggest you get a tank of helium and permanently relieve us all from your idiotic bullcrap.

>But you have NOT given up your rights to your code.
You haven't but by licensing your code under the GPL you are giving rights to whoever you distribute your code to.

>License revocation is time, effort and possibly money wasted just to spite people, and probably destroy my reputation.

YES. That IS what it is. But it is also your lawful right.

It does cost time (copyright registration (you want to do this before any of these fights)) 2 weeks to 6 months depending on how much you want to pay the Copyright Office.

It does Cost money (Over half a grand for an expedited registration (the 2 week option)).

And it would destroy your reputation as a woman worshiping cuckold white faggot: which Whites are proud of (they love bombing muslims who marry little girls (YHWH allows men to marry little girls including in cases of rape: Devarim ch 22 verse 28: Na'ar (child), Padia (child), Puella (young girl) [Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Vulgate]).

All these are true.
But you can do it. And show that you are not white. That you don't hate God. That you hate white people and their woman worshiping wageslave ways instead.

Sure you don't want to?

Attached: 1503626682634.jpg (1280x720, 214K)