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
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 kerne
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 ende
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
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
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 2019-0
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 right
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.
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 infa
On 2019-01-02 02:32, Mike Galbraith wrote:
Take your medication.
Why don't you like my short story?
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.
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.
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 infa
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 no
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 LICE
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 copyr
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
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
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
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 (whi
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 b
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 h
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
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
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 al
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" (fals
(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
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
(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
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
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
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 doc
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
33 matches
Mail list logo
