Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by
That may be OpenBSD policy, but it is not the law. Your OpenBSD policy cannot bind the copyright holder of the works you distribute. It's also an incorrect statement of the law. If the copyright holder did not receive consideration/payment/etc from you: you have no interest to bind him with. He can rescind. If you read the BSD license(s) there is never a "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, so you cannot even make an argument that you relied on a promise of his (he made no such promise). Furthermore you never paid for that non-existent promise to begin with: he just gratuitously gave you permission to use and modify his property. He end that permission. Why would you think that you can make promises for some other entity even? How does that even make sense to you? Additionally, the *BSD projects (as entities) cannot make promises about code they do not own the copyright to. So if you did not require copyright assignment from developer X, Y, Z, said developer still owns the copyright: not the project. So, maybe the project or entity E is making some promise: but that promise was not made with respect to code snippet FOO since the project or entity E does not actually OWN code snippet FOO but instead there has been granted a license to use and modify it. Permission that can be rescinded from the licensee E unless the licensee E secured an interest regarding that (paid the programmer, for instance, and he agreed to terms etc). The rule is that a license is revocable absent an attached interest. Gratuitous licenses are not worth the paper they are printed on. (usually they are never printed out tho :P, or even read). They do not bind the grantor. They bind YOU. Not the property owner. (If you want the property owner bound to the terms you purchase that right from him in some way.) Ingo Schwarze wrote: -- Hi, i'm not replying to the trolls (or their off-topic rants) in this thread, and i'm not spamming other project's lists. Instead, i'd merely like to clarify a point that is actually on topic on this list, to avoid that users get confused by FUD. One of the trolls wrote: 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). That is not what /usr/share/misc/license.template means, and i'm sure all OpenBSD developers are aware of that. The OpenBSD website makes the meaning very explicit: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html [...] Finally, releases are generally binding on the material that they are distributed with. This means that if the originator of a work distributes that work with a release granting certain permissions, those permissions apply as stated, without discrimination, to all persons legitimately possessing a copy of the work. That means that having granted a permission, the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should the copyright holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work. Yours, Ingo
FWD: 2: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor. FromR0b0t1 To gentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org Cc ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com , debian-u...@lists.debian.org, d...@lists.dyne.org Reply-Togentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org DateThu 20:42 Message Body Apologize for the follow up: Not being able to rescind the license is like saying someone who was lent a lawnmower gets to keep it indefinitely with no contest because the person who lent it can't rescind the grant to the lawnmower. On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:39 PM R0b0t1 wrote:
FWD: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor. FromR0b0t1 To gentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org Cc ubuntu-us...@lists.ubuntu.com , debian-u...@lists.debian.org, d...@lists.dyne.org Reply-Togentoo-u...@lists.gentoo.org DateThu 20:39 This was cross posted so many places I have to preface: I got here from the Gentoo list. If this only makes it to the crossposter forward or follow up on the information as you see fit. The post is crass but still has technical merit. More importantly he seems to be right, the idea that the grantees can't rescind their grant is pretty strange. I'm allowed to change my mind, and you have no claim to my labor if you didn't pay for it, nor can you make me work for free. On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:16 PM wrote: > (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. There is one thing you get for free (that you probably had anyway): I was seeing whether or not the disclaimer of liability in most FOSS licenses was valid. They may not be, *especially* in those United States which require a guarantee of merchantability or suitability for a particular purpose. Read: You made it, you claim it does something, and if someone uses it and it *doesn't* do that thing explosively it's still your fault even if it was free. The amount of damages are definitely tempered by the fact it was free. Depending on the license, state, and judge, you could have given consideration even though you did not pay money. Everyone else has NOTHING. Do you understand that? I think it is important to clarify that it can be requested you stop distributing the work or stop using it for some commercial purpose, but there is no way you could e.g. be forced to delete copies of it you already have. Also: Consideration can be nonmonetary, can you speak to this? Cheers, R0b0t1 [... snip anger ...] 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 >> p
Re: Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant. GPLv2 is a bare license and is revocable by the grantor.
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, -- Raul
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
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
Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
Your 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 pattern. (And even then all they
Yes: The linux devs can rescind their license grant.
Your 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 pattern. (And even then all they
