(Video): Regarding Linux: yes you can rescind license to use your code.
One note: The audio/videos are explained in American. Those who enjoy English may read the lengthy explanations given here previously. American was chosen for the audio/video for those who do not like reading. Hopefully this choice of dialect will be most understandable for The People. Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4 Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl (Note: these will only be up for 30 days so re-post them somewhere else perhaps.)
Re: Why choose Debian on server
Indeed. Anything _with_ systemd is insecure. Any linux distro _without_ the GRSecurity patch is insecure. There is nothing secure about Debian. Linux kernel is swiss cheese without the GRSecurity/PaX etc patch. (BTW: GRSecurity is currently (Blatantly) violating the licensing terms of the kernel by adding additional restrictive terms so as to prevent redistribution -- which has succeeded*) *Infact the pro-CoC part of the kernel team itself seems to have been inspired by GRSecurity in some manners here, adding their own additional writing inorder to pressure, libel, and threaten civil torts against those who don't obey their speech codes. Threatening the various other copyright holders themselves. (There is a remedy: Rescind) Those are the facts. On 2019-01-03 09:00, Ivan Ivanov wrote: Debian is very secure But it uses systemD as its' init system which has a really bad security: over 1 million lines of poorly written code and authors are deliberately ignoring the security issues - to a point where systemD has been awarded a Pwnie anti-award because of arrogant devs refusing to fix a critical vulnerability. If you need a true security, choose Devuan: it has all the benefits of Debian + much simpler init system with in order of magnitude better security, thanks to "Keep It Simple, Stupid" principle Because Debian doesn't come from a company, it can't go out of business or be taken over. As a technical project, Debian can ruin itself by choosing the political decisions over technical, like it recently did by removing a Weboob package after the herassment of some SSJiWs from Debian antiher.assment team. Luckily Devuan is not affected by this madness. чт, 3 янв. 2019 г. в 07:40, Gary Dale : On 2019-01-02 5:51 a.m., Alessandro Baggi wrote: > Hi list, > I'm new to this list and I'm choosing the right distribution for > server needs. I hope that I'm not OT and don't want start a flame. I'm > evaluating the possibility to switch on debian so I hope you will give > your experiences about this topic. > > At the moment I'm using CentOS 7 on server and workstation but very > old software, add third repos for get some software, use unmaintained > software where patchs are released by dev distro team, big changes > between a current release and next release, big corporation piloted > distro, waiting that rh release a security patches and then recompiled > on centos, problem on new hardware, unable to install new software > from source due to old libs get me bored, and frustated in the last > year. I like flexibility and I noticed that centos chains my knowledge. > > Today seems that RH Family is the standard and rh is more supported by > software vendors. Considering 10 years of support, Selinux working out > of the box, stability, enteprise class and free distro..user choose > Centos with the perception that things work better because all is > "followed" by a corporation. With this assumption users feel more > secure and unfailing. > > This is not necessarely true. I think that is the sysadmin that make > things safer, secure and unfailing. Sure that a stable and reliable OS > take his part but when big blue take this game I'm not so sure about > centos future. What if someone will choose to drop centos project? > Maybe this is premature but from this "Why not choose a stable and > community piloted distro where user needs are first purpose?" > > I used Debian in the past on several server for a big company without > any problems but now are several years that I use centos on server and > workstation and today I lost my debian knowledge about stability on > server usage. > > Why you choose debian on server? Where for you it is better than > centos and other server distro? > > Thanks in advance. > Alessandro. > Because Debian doesn't come from a company, it can't go out of business or be taken over. And because Debian has lots of spinoffs, including distros that are in the commercial server market (e.g. Ubuntu), you can bet that everything runs on it and it runs on everything. Debian is also very stable and very secure. While Red Hat may have a segment of the corporate market, I'll bet that there are more Debian servers than Red Hat. If you think Red Hat has the market cornered, you aren't looking at the full market. Then there are things like the Raspberry Pi, which are used in a lot of specialized server-type tasks, that mainly use Debian. They can do a lot of things that are useful in a corporate environment that you wouldn't want to put on a real server. I also use Debian on my desktop (I have for decades) so there is a good knowledge crossover. I don't need to learn and use two different kinds of systems.
Re: knifeshack (Linux Property rights)
Your "no it does not because we are talking about software" argument is, to put it simply in a way you can understand: retarded. It shows that you, a software engineer, because you are learned in one field of endeavor, believe yourself to be "smart" and "reasonable" in unrelated fields of endeavors. You are wrong. This really shows how stupid alot of you western software-only guys are. (Also moronic is your constant disparagement of those who have to deal with the physical realities of things: the hardware guys). I have gone to lengths to attempt to teach you the foundation of licensing law, how it interacts with copyright, and how such applies to the specific facts surrounding the linux kernel; myself knowing the history of the kernel, and also being studied in US law. It doesn't seem to get through. So simply: You are not a lawyer. Do not think your "common sense" as a software engineer applies to the law. --- (On to the knifeshack analogy/story:) In the USA, the law regarding licensing of various properties is similar. The key here is that the owner simply gave permission to use his property (he did not seek payment for extending that permission). To illustrate the fact, so that non-lawyers would understand, we have used a Knife as an analogy. Also note: It is from the USA that the CoC problem is emanating, so it is right to use the law of the USA to illustrate the point (also since that's where lawsuits are most likely to occur: You do know about the USA, correct?) It doesn't matter so much, in this corner of the law, that IP is not physical property. In the area of giving permission to use it, it is treated much the same. Remember: the "Thing" that was extended to you was the permission, that is what you "have", you do not own the intellectual property you were licensed. Now, once we look at commercial licenses, things get more complicated because you paid for the license. But the key point here is that this isn't such a situation. We are not discussing commercial software licensing here. When you cursory look up information to "fact check" me, 9 times out of 10 you will be reading about the law as regards to commercial licenses where there is bargained-for consideration. Then you cite that to say that I'm wrong. (PJ made this very same mistake on this issue in 2005, she's still "cited" even though she's just a paralegal (still) and not a lawyer, and is wrong (maybe that's why she shut-up once her identity was know)). A license not coupled with an interest is revocable by the property owner. It's fairly simple. Ask yourself "did I pay linux programer-copyright-holder 7829 for permission to use his code?". No? Then you have not paid for whatever "promise" he made to you (if any). Thus you cannot bind him. And as I have shown; he never even made the promise you imagine he did. The whole counter-argument is to concoct some non-existent attached interest. The fact that we are dealing with software and not land or personal property is NOT controlling. I know you think it should be handled differently, but your uneducated opinion is not controlling law. Perhaps you would be better off with a video recorded in American to explain it all simply: Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4 Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl On 2019-01-03 12:19, MPhil. Emanoil Kotsev wrote: vsnsdua...@memeware.net wrote: On 2019-01-02 02:32, Mike Galbraith wrote: Take your medication. Don't like the story? Why what is wrong with it. Was it the entrance, the middle, or the conclusion? It simply explains licensing in a way you might find helpful, as it relates to linux. No, it does not, because you can not copy and redistribute anything but software. PLS give us a break!
(Video): Regarding Linux: yes you can rescind license to use your code.
One note: The audio/videos are explained in American. Those who enjoy English may read the lengthy explanations given here previously. American was chosen for the audio/video for those who do not like reading. Hopefully this choice of dialect will be most understandable for The People. Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4 Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl (Note: these will only be up for 30 days so re-post them somewhere else perhaps.)
(Video) Linux and GPLv2 license rescission: Explained in American.
Liveleak took the files down, here they are again, on a different host: Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4 Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl Spread them, since people don't like reading... The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license rescission (revocation). (Explained in American) Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code.
Re: (Audio/Video): The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license recission (revocation).
Liveleak took the files down, here they are again: Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4 Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl So hard finding "don't need your real contact info" file hosts these days. (And "real contact info" also includes a non-proxy'd IP) On 2019-01-04 14:43, Ivan Ivanov wrote: Sadly your informative videos deleted (by NSA?), could you please reupload? This could be useful for removing your source code if you disagree with Cock of Conduct пт, 4 янв. 2019 г. в 16:04, : Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code. Video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9O5vz_1546606404 ( Audio Only: ) (Part1: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=s3Sr9_1546605652 ) (Part2: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOkfS_1546605889 )
(Audio/Video) Linux and GPLv2 license rescission. (previous was removed by liveleak)
Liveleak took the files down, here they are again: Video: https://openload.co/f/mT_AH3xmIUM/TruthAboutLinuxandGPLv2__.mp4 Audio: https://ufile.io/sdhpl Spread them, since people don't like reading... The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license rescission (revocation). Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code. "The flow of waters, like the flow of time, like the flow of truth"
(Audio/Video): The Truth about Linux GPLv2 and license recission (revocation).
Information regarding the rights of the linux programmers, regarding rescission (revocation) of their granted license to use their code. Video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=9O5vz_1546606404 ( Audio Only: ) (Part1: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=s3Sr9_1546605652 ) (Part2: http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=aOkfS_1546605889 )
knifeshack (Linux Property rights)
Let's say you had an old knife shack. Called Knife Shack InC. (you ain't incorporated, you just call it that, looks nice on the sign). On an old dusty road, telephone pole bout ready to fall down next typhoon hit. Behind yo knoif shack there is quite a body of water, now it's murky, but it is infact quite deep. An old sink hole, now filled beyond filling with the dandruff of the ages. No outlets, so the water just pools and infiltrates the surrounding properties. You own this little piece of the world, owned it for a few generations, bought it off of the old landlords when they were selling mineral rights and then decided to get rid of the rest too. They went up north. A reverse carpet-bagging situation. You don't have much. You have a house on another piece of property, quite aways up the road, and this shack, and this sinkhole. You actually are quite the property owner, but it ain't worth shit. That's what erryone tell you anyhow. The old big house been turned into an old folks home a decaded ago, shame, it's a piece of shit like your property now - least that's what everyone say. Pope's on TV, old fan from the 50s still working, You could get a flat screen but the power supplies can't handle the brown outs here, old TV still works fine, you use it like a radio anyway. Guy comes into your fish shack. You ain't never seen him in your life, you tell yourself. You know him however, he lives somewhat close, comes in from time to time, looks around, he in a suit, he never buys from you anything, he has a reputation, suits getting dusty, the pinstripes are wider than that which the people on TV wear. He comes up to you. You're playing with a knife of yours, spinning it on it's tip. It's a fish skinning knife with a gutting hook on the back. It is quite a large one. The blade is a full 15 inches, thick, you could work on the sand sharks with this, if you ever took the hour and ahalf drive down to the beach. You have a sign on your counter: "We's generous". Sometimes people ask you what that means. The man in the suit approaches you: first time for everthing. S: "Ay, I'd like that knife" You tell him it isn't for sale. S: "I ain neva said I thoughts it was, whass 'Wes generous' mean anyhow" You tell him that you will lend him the knife if he wishes. S: "Aight" He takes possession of the knife. He's a fisher he says. The man in the striped suit leaves. Months go by. You see the man sometimes, he tells you how the knife you licensed to him is getting great use, he fishes alot you see. He then inquires about that murky seemingly bottomless sinkhole out back. He wishes to be-able to dump some fishing refuse in it. S: "We's generous, right?" You grant him license to travel over your land to the sinkhole and dump the fishing refuse into the sinkhole. Time passes. You notice your knife has become more resplendent. Each time the stripped suited man, this fisher, catches a fish, it seems, he is in the habit of tacking a red five pointed star from Russia onto the handle. Each time the man comes into your shack you notice that there are more and more red stars, additionally, between the stars is now a dark red lacquer. It looks quite stunning, a battle worn cleaver; shouting it's victory against countless ensnared aquatic beings. Time, again, passes. Two police officers show up. Not the state troopers who sometimes come by the shop, no these are from one of the towns. P1: "You sell guttin knives here" You respond in the affirmative. P1: "You ever sold a rather large red gutting knife, tack handled" He seems to be getting agitated. You say no, but you have licensed a fisher to use a knife you own, and while it was not originally tack-handled, nor red, now it would indeed match such a description. P1: "You fking piece of shit, you get us back that knife or you are going down as an accomplice, you understand that you coal bla.." The second police man interrupts him. They start to head out. The second police man informs you that they will be by the store three days from now, as well as one week from now. To please reassert possession of the knife in that time. A month goes by and they do not come. Three months later you are arrested and interrogated in the harshest possible terms. You wonder if you can father children anymore. You are informed that the prosecutor has agreed to prosecute you as an accomplice, however if you come into possession of the knife, they may reconsider. Soon thereafter the suited man appears in your store. You tell him that you are ending the license you had extended to him, regarding both the knife and the permission to dump in the sinkhole. He contends that the knife is irrevocable: He relys upon the knife to execute his job of fishing. Furthermore he has put tacks in the knife, and if he were to return the knife to you his tack work would go to waste from his point of view. Additionally he tells you that he also relys on your extended license to dump the
Re: knifeshack (Linux Property rights) -- Why dislike short story?
On 2019-01-02 02:32, Mike Galbraith wrote: Take your medication. Why don't you like my short story?
Re: knifeshack (Linux Property rights)
On 2019-01-02 02:32, Mike Galbraith wrote: Take your medication. Don't like the story? Why what is wrong with it. Was it the entrance, the middle, or the conclusion? It simply explains licensing in a way you might find helpful, as it relates to linux.
(as you know) The FSF require contributors to their projects to assign ownership of the works to them...
A license without an attached interest is revocable by the owner of the property. The FSF require contributors to their projects to assign ownership of the works to them: For the FSF the license is not enough. Put two and two together.
knifeshack (Linux Property rights)
Let's say you had an old knife shack. Called Knife Shack InC. (you ain't incorporated, you just call it that, looks nice on the sign). On an old dusty road, telephone pole bout ready to fall down next typhoon hit. Behind yo knoif shack there is quite a body of water, now it's murky, but it is infact quite deep. An old sink hole, now filled beyond filling with the dandruff of the ages. No outlets, so the water just pools and infiltrates the surrounding properties. You own this little piece of the world, owned it for a few generations, bought it off of the old landlords when they were selling mineral rights and then decided to get rid of the rest too. They went up north. A reverse carpet-bagging situation. You don't have much. You have a house on another piece of property, quite aways up the road, and this shack, and this sinkhole. You actually are quite the property owner, but it ain't worth shit. That's what erryone tell you anyhow. The old big house been turned into an old folks home a decaded ago, shame, it's a piece of shit like your property now - least that's what everyone say. Pope's on TV, old fan from the 50s still working, You could get a flat screen but the power supplies can't handle the brown outs here, old TV still works fine, you use it like a radio anyway. Guy comes into your fish shack. You ain't never seen him in your life, you tell yourself. You know him however, he lives somewhat close, comes in from time to time, looks around, he in a suit, he never buys from you anything, he has a reputation, suits getting dusty, the pinstripes are wider than that which the people on TV wear. He comes up to you. You're playing with a knife of yours, spinning it on it's tip. It's a fish skinning knife with a gutting hook on the back. It is quite a large one. The blade is a full 15 inches, thick, you could work on the sand sharks with this, if you ever took the hour and ahalf drive down to the beach. You have a sign on your counter: "We's generous". Sometimes people ask you what that means. The man in the suit approaches you: first time for everthing. S: "Ay, I'd like that knife" You tell him it isn't for sale. S: "I ain neva said I thoughts it was, whass 'Wes generous' mean anyhow" You tell him that you will lend him the knife if he wishes. S: "Aight" He takes possession of the knife. He's a fisher he says. The man in the striped suit leaves. Months go by. You see the man sometimes, he tells you how the knife you licensed to him is getting great use, he fishes alot you see. He then inquires about that murky seemingly bottomless sinkhole out back. He wishes to be-able to dump some fishing refuse in it. S: "We's generous, right?" You grant him license to travel over your land to the sinkhole and dump the fishing refuse into the sinkhole. Time passes. You notice your knife has become more resplendent. Each time the stripped suited man, this fisher, catches a fish, it seems, he is in the habit of tacking a red five pointed star from Russia onto the handle. Each time the man comes into your shack you notice that there are more and more red stars, additionally, between the stars is now a dark red lacquer. It looks quite stunning, a battle worn cleaver; shouting it's victory against countless ensnared aquatic beings. Time, again, passes. Two police officers show up. Not the state troopers who sometimes come by the shop, no these are from one of the towns. P1: "You sell guttin knives here" You respond in the affirmative. P1: "You ever sold a rather large red gutting knife, tack handled" He seems to be getting agitated. You say no, but you have licensed a fisher to use a knife you own, and while it was not originally tack-handled, nor red, now it would indeed match such a description. P1: "You fking piece of shit, you get us back that knife or you are going down as an accomplice, you understand that you coal bla.." The second police man interrupts him. They start to head out. The second police man informs you that they will be by the store three days from now, as well as one week from now. To please reassert possession of the knife in that time. A month goes by and they do not come. Three months later you are arrested and interrogated in the harshest possible terms. You wonder if you can father children anymore. You are informed that the prosecutor has agreed to prosecute you as an accomplice, however if you come into possession of the knife, they may reconsider. Soon thereafter the suited man appears in your store. You tell him that you are ending the license you had extended to him, regarding both the knife and the permission to dump in the sinkhole. He contends that the knife is irrevocable: He relys upon the knife to execute his job of fishing. Furthermore he has put tacks in the knife, and if he were to return the knife to you his tack work would go to waste from his point of view. Additionally he tells you that he also relys on your extended license to dump the
An attached interest is essential to argue that rescission is improper: you must have paid the owner for such an attached interest.
1015331 You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is meaningless. It is not meaningless, it is essential. For you to have an attached interest, you must secure it. And you must secure it from the property owner. The GPL is a commercial distribution license. It is not. Nothing was payed to many 1000s of property owners for them to forgo their default rights, nor did they disclaim them in the license, nor were they paid for said non-existent disclaimers. People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big profit by doing this. Until the license is revoked. All your "rights" stem from the choice of the property owner to alienate his property as he sees fit. Here he has chosen to alienate his property very little: he has simply granted a license (not a transfer). He may revoke this grant at his leasure since it is not secured by an interest. You paid nothing to Owner. Owner gave nothing to you. He is simply allowing you to temporarily use his property. He can end this permission when he wishes. You then must prove that you paid him to not use this property right of his, and that he gave to you (in return for this payment in money, performance, goods) a promise to forgo this right of his. You cannot show that. You have no right to prevent him from recovering his property. In this case the code. He can say: nope, you cannot use it any-longer in new editions of this software. Then the burden is on you to show the court where he sold you some right that runs counter to his default rights in his own property. He never did so, so you have nothing to show. >>1015264 >Without an attached interest you can very well revoke the license and prevent all further distribution of your code, and further use of it in future versions. You cannot revoke the GPL license, having no attached interest is meaningless. The GPL is a commercial distribution license. People are allowed to distribute GPL software and they are allowed to make a big profit by doing this.
Yes: your code IS property. It is YOUR property.
he compares lending a physical object to licensing intellectual property Why are you still LARPing as a laywer? 1015334 The foundation of this law IS in property law. Copyright is alienable in all ways that property is (see: US Copyright statute). That is where you get the ability to LICENSE software, books, music, etc to begin with. The Copyright act announces that these ethereal concepts, these things that are not in reality something one can truly physically extend dominion and control (ownership) over... are never the less... to be treated as such. Yes, a License, first and foremost, is a PROPERTY law concept. Property which you can defend, which you can build walls around, which you can enclose, from which you can eject trespassers. An Idea? A song? Can one eject a tresspasser from that? Can one ever rape a mind of an allready-recieved idea? Can one cut from the grasp of an interlocutor, this supposed Object ... a song? No. Not in reality. But the Copyright Act declares differently. It declares that these incorporeal concepts be imagined to be that piece of land on which your stronghold sits, onwhich your implements of defence are trained from the high towers you have erected. It declares that a Song, A piece of litererature, every copy there-of, all-in-the-same, is not a wisp upon the wind... but a piece of land, or some personal implement such as an ax. And that you can, indeed, cut from the grasp of some theif this ax, you can cut his fingers one by one until that Ax of yours falls from his countenance back into your possession. And the way this is done is by the destruction of all offending articles: which a court may order, and or the punishment of those who would violate the property rights of the owner, which again the court may order. So yes, intellectual property is... like a physical thing. Because the law says it is. Even though you cannot even prevent yourself from knowing that which is thrust upon you... Here the property owners, who came to be property owners at the fixation of the article (that is: when the code was written down), chose not to transfer their ownership in the article. Instead they, after reading the Copyright Act, elected to a different from of Property alienation. A rather limited form known as a license. Permission. A temporary grant which, at their time of choosing, they may end. Since this grant makes no mention of them selling off their right to rescind the permission, and since, indeed, forbearance of said right was not sold, there is no attached interest with which to bind their hand. They may rescind. If you don't like that: pay them for a forbearance.
Re: Thank you for your messages, and Happy New Year ;)
Thanks for your response :). Please Spread the word regarding the copyright-holders rights (remeber: the Linux kernel programmers did not sign over their copyrights, one of the reasons Linux grew so quickly amongst developers where GNU very slowly (The FSF will only include code where the copyright has been transferred to it)), thus the various 1000s of linux programmers who didn't work for a company all retain their property rights. A license is just that: license (permission). It is not a transfer of rights. These licenses that were given are non-exclusive (not to just one entity) and are thus cannot be construed as transfers either. It's simply permission to use property, same as if you allowed a neighbor to use an ax you owned (gave them license to use the ax). If that neighbor went and then chopped an enemy to pieces with that ax, limb by limb, joint by joint, applying burning cauterizing oil after each dismemberment, he cannot say "I will not give you back the ax, because I relied on your lease, and thus used the ax in such a way as it would be inconvenient for me to return it to you". The ax is still yours and you may tell your friend: give me my ax back now (this is you rescinding the license).
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: CoC loving Linux programmers... is completely on topic.
Funny, the pro-CoC developers claim any discussion is off-topic on the linux developer lists. The licensing of linux-kernel is completely on topic, since there may be linux-copyright-holders reading this list. They have been told they have no rights, that they transferred them away. This is a complete lie. They have only magnanimously granted a license to use their code. They have received nothing for it. It is a gratuitous license given by them. They can rescind this license from whomever they want at any time. Including the linux kernel project. This is being resolved off-list shortly. Some veiled threat? Because you do not like my way of speaking, or the topic? You want the property-owners to be dispossessed? On 2019-01-01 20:49, Rich Freeman wrote: On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Dale wrote: Question. Why are these license discussions being done on a USER list instead of a DEVELOPER list? Gentoo has mailing lists that are to be used for this sort of topic. How about taking them there? Here is a link with them listed. This is indeed off-topic for this list (and other Gentoo lists). This is being resolved off-list shortly. I appreciate everybody's ongoing patience with not replying.
Yes you can rescind. Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).
If you lend (license) your lawnmower to BrucePerens, and receive nothing in return, and BrucePerens hires someone else to draw a star on your lawnmower, BrucePerens believes he can keep your lawnmower forever because he "relied" on your lease and , even though he paid you nothing and you never said you would not rescind the license (a default right of yours, you being the property owner). On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote: "Consideration" can be in form of " detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and that reliance cost you something. So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing programs based on the license you have paid for the license.
Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).
What promise did you rely upon? It is the right of the property owner to revoke. You payed the property owner (Linux Programmer 721) nothing for his code. He never promised you that he would forgo his right to revoke (Read the GPLv2, there is no mention of not revoking the license. Something which the GPLv3 adds). (The SFConservancy's artistic interpretations were debunked 5 hours after publication) Additionally you did not pay the LICENSOR for this forbearance. It is not reasonable for you to rely on a promise that was never made, and a promise that you never payed the owner for. In short: you are wrong, and you and others are attempting to convert the property of the copyright owners to your own property, essentially. (Your claim is that another's property can be taken from him because to do otherwise would be inconvenient to the people that are committed to committing the taking.) On 2019-01-01 12:42, william drescher wrote: "Consideration" can be in form of " detrimental reliance." That means that you relied on the license and that reliance cost you something. So if you spend money to pay programmers or if you spend time writing programs based on the license you have paid for the license.
Re: A license without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor
No legal reasoning to assert. A license without an attached interest is revocable by the grantor. On 2018-12-28 17:22, Raul Miller wrote: On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 3:12 PM wrote: ... pompous programmer asshole*. I think you are projecting your own personality in your perception of others (which is a natural thing to do - everyone does that to some degree). That said, I am going to filter your messages to my spam bucket from now on. Have fun,
Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore? - Attack the messaging rely, not the message!
Lieutenant Ts'o: I see that you have adopted the strategy of "Attack the messaging service, not the message". You cannot refute my arguments, you and yours simply claim "it's a lie", "it's BS!", "it's a troll". The fact of the matter is: a license without an interest attached is revocable by the grantor. That is: if you have not been paid to forgo your right to rescind, you still retain that right. In the case of Linux or BSD: if entity X did not pay you, and did not reasonably rely on a promise not to rescind (a promise you never made), you can rescind the license at any time. This goes for all the 1000s of linux and BSD programmers who have not transferred their rights. Yes I am a licensed attorney. Yes my analysis is correct. And yes I'm still waiting on Eben Moglen's promised counter-analysis (it's been 2 months)... take a guess as to why. On 2018-12-28 13:57, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: +---+ .:\:\:/:/:. | PLEASE DO NOT |:.:\:\:/:/:.: | FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=: | | '=(\ 9 9 /)=' | Thank you, | ( (_) ) | Management | /`-vvv-'\ +---+ / \ | |@@@ / /|,|\ \ | |@@@ /_// /^\ \\_\ @x@@x@| | |/ WW( ( ) )WW \/| |\| __\,,\ /,,/__ \||/ | | | (__Y__) /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ == I recommend that people not respond to vsnsdua...@memeware.net, visionsofal...@redchan.it, and in general, any e-mail coming from domains served by the cock.li service (which comes from the IP address 185.100.85.212). As you can tell if you go to its web page, this mailer serves the following domains: cock.li, airmail.cc, 8chan.co, redchan.it, 420blaze.it, aaathats3as.com, cumallover.me, dicksinhisan.us, loves.dicksinhisan.us, wants.dicksinhisan.us, dicksinmyan.us, loves.dicksinmyan.us, wants.dicksinmyan.us, goat.si, horsefucker.org, national.shitposting.agency, nigge.rs, tfwno.gf, cock.lu, cock.email, firemail.cc, getbackinthe.kitchen, memeware.net, cocaine.ninja, waifu.club, rape.lol, and nuke.africa This has been a public service announcement. "Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Re: FU: RE: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
I was addressing OpenBSD as-well, I chose the lists to CC to: linux lists and BSD, since the underlying concerns are the same. It took slightly longer to find the appropriate openbsd list, infact, so you definitely weren't CC'd by accident. On 2018-12-27 22:54, leo_...@volny.cz wrote: zeur here. I now[0] see that a whole bunch of lists were Cc'd, and while I'm not sorry for not preserving the Ccs, I realize that you might not have been addressing us, m...@openbsd.org. I still think my point holds, though. This should be a matter of great concern for OpenBSD, like it is to just about every other project relying on licensed code, "open" or not. --zeur. [0] post-coffee-intake =) This whole discussion is best served elsewhere.
Re: A lawyer?!
Your initial argument, as I imagine you ment to communicate (a single negation, rather than the double negation you proffered) hits a snag: I am a licensed attorney. "You ain't no lawyer, buddy" Your double negatives speak the truth: I am a licensed attorney. "you're a clueless halfwit" I'm sure my intellect is half that of someone somewhere. "clueless" Incorrect, I have informed you of the law, and my analysis is correct. the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux Many lawyers perhaps begged the linux copyright holders to stop playing fast and loose with the law and their licensing regime. Their advice, of-course, was rejected, and their patches rejected by linus. One attempted patch (the GPLv3) very publicly so. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never. I notice that the nobles of europe, those that were not murdered, are still in the possession of their inherited lands, while you americans are poor as you constantly divide you wealth in your quest to be "real men". (You also murder anyone who likes cute young girls, in that same quest). I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed. I'm quite tall already. Enjoy your wage slave life though :) While you were slaving away, being a MhrrAhhN I attended law school, graduated, acquired my license, studied more, programmed videogames, studied more, built 3d architecture, studied more, did RL architecture, studied more, etc. And had parties every other week with my friends. While you pursued the goals of a real man. On 2018-12-25 12:50, f...@fuckyou.net wrote: Hahahahahaha! You ain't no lawyer, buddy -- you're a clueless halfwit, the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux. The Libertarian/Men's Rights morons who circle jerk themselves to no end over on r/TheDonald. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never. I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.
Re: A lawyer?!
Your initial argument, as I imagine you ment to communicate (a single negation, rather than the double negation you proffered) hits a snag: I am a licensed attorney. "You ain't no lawyer, buddy" Your double negatives speak the truth: I am a licensed attorney. "you're a clueless halfwit" I'm sure my intellect is half that of someone somewhere. "clueless" Incorrect, I have informed you of the law, and my analysis is correct. the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux Many lawyers perhaps begged the linux copyright holders to stop playing fast and loose with the law and their licensing regime. Their advice, of-course, was rejected, and their patches rejected by linus. One attempted patch (the GPLv3) very publicly so. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never. I notice that the nobles of europe, those that were not murdered, are still in the possession of their inherited lands, while you americans are poor as you constantly divide you wealth in your quest to be "real men". (You also murder anyone who likes cute young girls, in that same quest). I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed. I'm quite tall already. Enjoy your wage slave life though :) While you were slaving away, being a MhrrAhhN I attended law school, graduated, acquired my license, studied more, programmed videogames, studied more, built 3d architecture, studied more, did RL architecture, studied more, etc. And had parties every other week with my friends. While you pursued the goals of a real man. On 2018-12-25 12:50, f...@fuckyou.net wrote: Hahahahahaha! You ain't no lawyer, buddy -- you're a clueless halfwit, the likes of which I've seen innumerable times in my years with Linux. The Libertarian/Men's Rights morons who circle jerk themselves to no end over on r/TheDonald. I'd ask when you're planning on moving out of your mom's basement, but, really, we already know the answer to that: never. I'd tall you to grow up, but that ship has clearly sailed.
Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you. So where my logic cannot be attacked, my person may be instead? Do you think me a fool, simply because you do not know what you do not know (the law), yet think you do (an attribute of many programmers: know one field, know them all!)? I've explained the law again and again. But here it goes: Under the copyright statute, copyrighted works are alienable in all the ways property is. You can sell, transfer, and license etc. Copyright comes into existence the moment your work is placed in a fix form. The copyright is owned by the progenitor (you the programmer) until such time as you transfer it (ex: to an employee by way of employment agreement stating such terms), or you die (now your descendants own the rights), or you or your descendants elect to use the "claw-back" provisions in the US copyright act some decades after the work was fixed. You, both BSD programmers, and Linux kernel programmers have elected to neither sell nor transfer in other ways your copyrights. Instead you have chosen to license your works. A license is a temporary grant. Under property law it can be rescinded when the property owner wishes to do so. Unless, the property owner has been payed to forgo that right. That is: if the property owner has been payed by the licensee to promise that he will not rescind the license, then if the property owner elects to rescind the license the court may estop the property owner from doing so because the licensee has payed the owner FOR that right. Equivalent exchange, if you will. (But the court does not look to if the consideration was... equivalent, just that there was an exchange of some consideration (read: money, goods, services) and a meeting of the minds (both parties ment to do this)) In the case of most linux and BSD licensees nothing has been payed by them to the programmers(you the copyright holders) to induce a forbearance of the underlying rights of the property owners. Thus the original default rights still stand. You can rescind at will. Additionally, you have never promised that you would forego the utilization of your property rights, so there is no promise anyone could reasonably rely upon to estop you from utilizing said rights. Additionally, Licensee "E" did not pay you for that non-existent promise either. You are not bound. You may rescind. You now know why the FSF requires programmers to assign all copyrights to it. You now know why Eben Moglen remains silent these last two months. I am correct, yes I am a lawyer, and yes anything he speaks further would simply show the weaknesses in his (magnanimously) taken position in trying to fool the Programmers into thinking they have forfeited rights they have not. On 2018-12-27 21:53, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: On 27/12/2018 21:30, vsnsdua...@memeware.net wrote: Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you. Why is no one discussing this anymore. You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with claims without any reproducible proof. And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if it goes in the other direction. It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from "Proof by claim"? I don't think so Are you idiots [...] Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...] Are you idiots [...] Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for (alleged) lawyers in your part of the world. MfG, Bernd PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam after all ...
Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Waiting quietly for two months for Eben Moglen's preliminary write-up (which I was to be sent to "correct") got me no-where. Every seems to have concluded that the issue is settled since there was no more public discussion. All the "other side" said was "nuh-uh" and "you're not a lawyer" (false: I am) and "you deserve to be in prison , isn't practicing law without a license a crime!" (I have a license), and "I'm sure RMS would have made sure the license was not revocable" (he required everyone to sign over their copyright to his foundation... guess why...). Along with "This Artistic License Case decided the AL was not a contract, it was simply a copyright license!! SO THERE!!" (AL is not the GPL... but... the finding in that case helps me, why are you citing it?). (They wisely did not cite the printer driver case where the court looked at the offer to do (paying) business and decided that their was an offer and acceptance based on that other additional writing... since that one isn't on point at all except for the fact that one of the options in that writing was a choice of a GPL licensed work if you didn't want to pay a commercial fee. (The contract there was the other writing giving the option: Pay and get more rights, don't pay and here's the GPL), so at-least there's that.) Being nice did nothing but harm the case of the truth in the eyes of the people however. The guys on the DNG list (Steve Litt I believe) are the ones that want me jailed... On 2018-12-27 20:37, Paul Stuffins wrote: Are you idiots aware Insulting people is not the right way to get your point across! ___ freebsd-c...@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
(2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))... I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer a__hole*. A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD license(s). The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis (paying) customers may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current versions they have in their posession, paid for by good consideration. Everyone else has NOTHING. Do you understand that? In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no consideration was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the programmers), who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there is NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU F___ING PIECE OF S__T? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE REGARDING YOUR WORK. One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of them were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either. *(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type) On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))... (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making these mistakes. Thanks, -- Raul
Why is no one discussing this anymore?
Why is no one discussing this anymore. It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from programmers. Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by virtue of being "smarts"? Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) ) Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong. Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing. It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades said: he's full of shit. Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken. The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one of them could shake the tree.
Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
(2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))... I have not made legal mistakes, pompous programmer asshole*. A gratuitous license, absent an attached interest, is revocable at will. This goes for GPLv2 as used by linux, just as it goes for the BSD license(s). The only entities who have, with regards to BSD, an attached interests are perhaps those companies who pay for its development. Non-gratis (paying) customers may have some refuge under consumer protection statutes, for current versions they have in their posession, paid for by good consideration. Everyone else has NOTHING. Do you understand that? In the case of the 1000's of linux copyright holders to whom no consideration was given by an entity, and the various BSD copyright holders (read: the programmers), who have not ASSIGNED their copyright over to some other entity, there is NOTHING to hold them to a promise THEY NEVER MADE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER THEY NOR YOU HAVE PROMISED NOT TO ELLECT TO USE YOUR AS-OF-RIGHT OPTION TO RESCIND YOUR GRATUITOUS LICENSE REGARDING YOUR WORK. One cannot rely on a promise that was never made, additionally many of them were never paid consideration for this non existant promise either. *(Note: I am both a programmer and an attorney, so I know the type) On 2018-12-24 16:01, Raul Miller wrote: (1) Wrong mailing lists - these are not linux mailing lists. (2) ... (I am not going to go over the legal mistakes you've made, because of (1))... (3) Anyways, ... people do make mistakes... But, please stop making these mistakes. Thanks, -- Raul On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 10:55 AM wrote: Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours after it was published: Yes they can, greg. The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks consideration between the licensee and the grantor. (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules regarding the alienation of property apply. Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming your right to rescind the license. Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one of them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to say that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt at the least)). The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause 4 of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses their permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that case the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission under the terms. Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's public service announcement chooses to ignore. Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public and the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not impinge the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The impinged property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be taken back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, and instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a Copyright License. The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - opensource is great") 2) Ignore the
Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
Bradley M. Kuhn: The SFConservancy's new explanation was refuted 5 hours after it was published: Yes they can, greg. The GPL v2, is a bare license. It is not a contract. It lacks consideration between the licensee and the grantor. (IE: They didn't pay you, Greg, a thing. YOU, Greg, simply have chosen to bestow a benefit upon them where they suffer no detriment and you, in fact, gain no bargained-for benefit) As a bare license, (read: property license), the standard rules regarding the alienation of property apply. Therein: a gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor. The licensee then may ATTEMPT, as an affirmative defense against your as-of-right action to claim promissory estoppel in state court, and "keep you to your word". However you made no such promise disclaiming your right to rescind the license. Remeber: There is no utterance disclaiming this right within the GPL version 2. Linus, furthermore, has chosen both to exclude the "or any later version" codicil, to reject the GPL version 3, AND to publicly savage GPL version 3 (he surely has his reasons, perhaps this is one of them, left unstated). (GPLv3 which has such promises listed (not to say that they would be effective against the grantor, but it is an attempt at the least)). The Software Freedom Conservancy has attempted to mis-construe clause 4 of the GPL version 2 as a "no-revocation by grantor" clause. However, reading said clause, using plain construction, leads a reasonable person to understand that said clause is speaking specifically about the situation where an upstream licensee loses their permission under the terms due to a violation of the terms; in that case the down-stream licensee does not in-turn also lose their permission under the terms. Additionally, clause 0 makes it crystal clear that "You" is defined as the licensee, not the grantor. Another issue the SFConservancy's public service announcement chooses to ignore. Thirdly, the SFConservancy banks on the ignorance of both the public and the developers regarding property alienation. A license does not impinge the rights of the party granting the license in a quid-pro-quo manner vis a vis the licensee's taking. A license merely grants permission, extended from the grantor, to the licensee, regarding the article of property that is being impinged. A license is NOT a full nor is it a permanent alienation of the article(property) in question. The impinged property, being under a non bargained-for temporary grant, can be taken back into the sole dominion of the owner - at his election to do so. Now as to the 9th circuit appellate court's decision in Jacobsen v. Katzer . While the court waxes eloquently about opensource licenses, even mentioning the word "consideration" in it's long dicta, when it comes time to make the binding decision the court found that the lower (district) court was in _ERROR_ regarding the application of contract-law principals to the Artistic License, regarding the case, and instructed the lower court to instead construe said license as a Copyright License. The SFConservancy, and Bruce Perens have chosen to: 1) Rely on the dicta. (non-binding - "some things could be contracts - opensource is great") 2) Ignore the actual ruling. (Binding - Copyright License - Not Contract) 3) Ignore that this case was about the AL, not the GPLv2 4) Ignore the existence of different jurisdictions. (Why file in the roll-the-dice 9th district if you can file in a district that has personal-juristicion over the defendant and is much more consistent in it's rulings?) 5) Ignore all established law regard property licensing, contract formation, meeting of the minds, what consideration is etc. Which is not surprising considering the desire of people like Bruce Perens is to rob MEN of EVERY benefit of their Labour and every speck of happiness in life and to transfer those benefits to WOMEN and those who support women. (This is why people who are like Bruce Perens, the SFConservancy menbers, and the CoC supporters, banned men from taking female children as brides: in contrivance to the law of YHWH (Devarim chapter 22 - - verse 28 (na'ar (LXX: padia)), and continue to uphold that ban world-wide, and seek to destroy ALL cultures that do no bend to their will who are not idolators of Women) Look, you may love your users, you may love the people who edit your code in their home or office; but the fact of the matter is... They have done nothing for you, they have promised nothing to you. They CANNOT hold YOU. You have the right to rescind at any time, and remove your work from any future versions of Linux. And you might consider doing so if YOU are done harm. Don't let the insatiable, never-satisfied, public fool you into thinking otherwise. And, yes, I am a lawyer. And, no, unlike the SFConservancy, I did not have to call upon outside counsel to analyze the fact
2 months and no response from Eben Moglen - Yes you can rescind your grant.
It has been 2 months. Eben Moglen has published no research. Because there is nothing more to say: The GPLv2, as used by linux, is a bare license. It can be rescinded at the will of the grantor. The regime that the FSF used, vis-a-vis the GPLv2, is essential: copyright transfers to a central repository entity that is sure not to rescind. Linus chose not to adopt this regime. He benefited by greatly increased developer contribution. The price for that windfall was and is the retention of their traditional property rights by the property holders. They can rescind at will. They made no promise nor utterance to the contrary that can be relied upon. They were paid no consideration. There was no meeting of the minds. Additionally the CoC regime itself is a license terms violation, being an additional restrictive term, as explained in the other analysis. (Similar to the GRSecurity license violation) On 2018-10-26 18:31, Eben Moglen wrote: On Friday, 26 October 2018, visionsofal...@redchan.it wrote: You are conflating case law dealing with commercial software and non-gratuitous licenses with the present situation, which would likely be a case of first-impression in nearly any jurisdiction. I think the best procedure would be for me to publish my analysis and for you then to tell me what is wrong with it. What you say here sounds like what a lawyer might say, but isn't. I have been teaching this stuff for about thirty years, so if I am conflating or confusing anything I will be grateful for help in seeing my mistake. The rule for gratuitous licenses is that they are revocable at the will of the grantor. That's not actually "the rule." It sounds like it might be the rule, but it so happens that it's not. When I have given the explanation as I have learned, taught and depended on it, you will be able to show me what I am wrong about. Raymond Nimmer (God rest his soul) was in agreement on this point, vis-a-vis the GPL and similar licenses. You have your Nimmers confused. The primary author of the treatise Nimmer on Copyright (a book about the law, not in itself an authority) was Melville Nimmer. The treatise is continued by his son, David, a fine lawyer with whom I do from time to time politely disagree about something. Ray Nimmer is quite another person. Eben
Reason for RedHat purchase 30 pct over market cap
Redhat has achieved "governance" over the Linux(TM), via systemd and the Code of Conduct. You, contributors, are now treated as employees. They are confident that you will not assert your property rights, since you attack those who do (See: Netfiter saga), and take it as an honour to sign documents pledging that you will not assert your property rights (prepared for you by your now-masters). They know that you are psychologically bound to behave as hirelings - servants, and not as property owners. Thus they can rest easy knowing the ground is, though made of sand, not in seeming danger of a tempest. Because of you. Because of your history of supplication. Your enuich-like nature. A nice example is Bradly Kuhn's recent blog posts 1) Excoriating RMS and 2) showing how he himself is submissive to a woman he hired. He's even angry that others still treat him with respect rather than transferring all the good will to the female figurehead everyone is supposed to now respect (for what reason? No, being an actual programmer is not required: sufficent is being a member of the "better" species that rules over the males under the anglo-american system that Bradly Kuhn and his kind uphold ) If I were them I would never donate another cent to the SFConservancy, and I would seek a claw-back of the funds that I did donate for improper use (yes this is possible under both California and New York law). Especially since they seem to have no in-house lawyers what-so-ever (so what is their purpose?). We are supposed to be proud that his mind is as innocent as his visage (perhaps why he had to hire outside counsel to give him an incorrect and abundantly couched opinion) [1] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/11/22/gnu-kind-communication-guidelines.html [2] http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2018/06/21/everyday-sexism.html
Re: You removed Weboob package over political reasons? Whole Internet laughs at you
Debian is not ruled by the men who actually write the software, but instead women. Just like in all the anglo-american conquered world. We, the men who actually do work, are treated as the same worker-slaves everywhere. Opensource was a refuge from the worthless cunts (who ban us from having anything good, such as cute young child brides (allowed by YHWH)) but has not been for some time now. Part and parcel of anglo culture: the man is a dog, the wwmmmannn is a Noble. Now that Linus has caved all is lost. But you can always rescind license for your copyrighted works... (as-long as they are a bare license such as the gpl2). Absent an attached interest (ie: someone paying you for use of the work, or relying on your promises): you the rightsholder have the right to rescind at will. GPL v2 lacks such language disclaiming rescission, you made no utterances that one could rely upon to suggest that there would be no rescission, and you were paid no consideration for your work. .: You can rescind, just like any other property license. And yes, I am a lawyer. Men should be free to take girl children as brides and feminism should be eliminated from the earth (just as they seek to eliminate all pro-male cultures in the world) On 2018-12-24 14:58, Default User wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2018, 05:20 Ivan Ivanov 500 comments at Slashdot, >200 at Phoronix and >1000 at linux org ru! See now? When a technical project starts making their decisions over political reasons... rather than technical, it is doomed. Good time to switch to a similar distro with mentally sane leadership, like Devuan. Also what's good about Devuan : Devuan does not use SystemDick as its' init system! SystemD contains 1 million lines of bloated code and lots of vulnerabilities have been found there and countless haven't, also the SystemD creators are arrogant and refuse to fix many discovered security vulnerabilities, to a point where they've been awarded a " Pwnie award " for refusing to fix a critical vuln. That is why I prefer the distros which are using something else as init system: either good old SysV, or something more modern like OpenRC (at Artix Linux) or runit (at Void Linux) , just not systemd! There are only a few such distros left because of Redhat pressure, and luckily Devuan is one of them. If you found Debian as useful before it went nuts then maybe you'd like Devuan, or even some other distros that I mentioned: Artix Linux =Arch with a human face (has GUI + everything configured by default, nice GUI package manager and convenient to use even for the beginners), and Void Linux -amazingly fast distro really suitable for old PCs, but lacks some packages so you'd need to compile the things from source once in a while, in comparison Artix has almost the same set of packages as Arch. Both Artix and Void are very stable despite their packages are really new and they are among the first to get new Linux kernels with fresh drivers. Or maybe MX Linux, one of the top popularity distros nowadays which is also "no systemd" and somehow only recently I learned about it Best regards, Ivan Ivanov, open source firmware developer How ridiculous that some pathetic questionable would spend their precious time on Earth censoring package names which contain the character string "boob". Sad.
