Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after this CoC:
Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant from (regarding their property (code)).
The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense, the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past contributions).
When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.
Banned contributors _should_ do this (note: plaintiff is to register their copyright prior to filing suit, the copyright does not have to be registered at the time of the violation however)
Additionally when said banned contributors joined the Linux team, they were under the impression that it was a meritocracy: in-fact this belief was stated or ratified by those within the governing body regarding Linux when the contributors began their work (whatever that body was at that time, it could have been simply Linus, or Linus and a few associates).
The remuneration for the work was implied to be, or perhaps stated, to be fame as-well as a potential increase in the contributors stature, in addition to membership in the Linux Kernel club or association, or whatever it is that the Linux Kernel Community actually is (which a court may determine... it is something, suffice to say).
Thusly for work, consideration was promised by (Linus? Others? There are years of mailing list archives with which to determine).
And now that consideration has been clawed-back and the contributors image has been tarnished.
Thus the worker did work, however the other side of the implied, or perhaps written (email memorandums), understanding has been violated (once the contributor has been banned under the new non-meritocratic "CoC").
Damages could be recovered under: breach of contract, quazi-contract, libel, false-light. (services rendered for the contractual claims, future lost income for the libel claims)
In addition to copyright claims. (statutory damages, profits)
For greatest effect, all rescission should be done at once in a bloc. (With other banned contributors).
Contributors: You were promised something, you laboured for that promise, and now the promise has become a lie. You have remedies available to you now, as-well as in the close future.
Additionally, regarding those who promoted the Code of Conduct to be used against the linux kernel contributors, knowing full well the effect it would have and desiring those effects; recovery for the ejected contributors via a tortious interference claim may be possible.
This nigger understands fully what's going down here. Pic number 2 shows they're really scared of this happening. ALL KERNELFAGS LURKING - THIS KILLS THE CORALINE
Lol fuck lawyers, let's make the first open source legal case.
Jayden Jackson
How difficult would it be for them to move to GPLv3?
Landon Brooks
Who's this cuck Steve Litt? And it isn't off topic, a major fucking change to Linux Development is serious business you little soyboy.
Cooper Morris
I thought contributing patches to kernel required legal waver of some sorts.
Joseph Morgan
P-PLEASE STOP
Joshua Allen
corporations and states have already pushed their code since forever
gpl3 does have some very nice additions
Isaiah Cooper
I am genuinely trying to understand this completely, but I don't think I am 100% getting this.
My understanding is that developers/ex developers can request their code be legally removed from the kernel because the CoC was not there when they originally submitted it and they maintain ownership of it?
Or have I gotten this completely wrong? Sorry, but I don't speak law or understand the kernel politics much, could someone kindly dumb this down for me so I could better understand this? Thanks a lot.
Joshua Rogers
OP's letter claims that under US copyright law author can rewoke non-binding licenses (such as GPL v.2) for his work at will, no justification required.
Xavier Gray
This is bollocks unfortunately. If that was possible, many people would have done so, for various other reasons.
Chase Scott
is right. Complete bullshit.
There are no terms in GPLv2 permitting the termination or revocation of the permission already given under it. Therefore, it is perpetual.
The termination section was added to GPLv3 to allow for licence termination in the event of an infringement of the patents section.
Lincoln Kelly
Yes, that's because it's part of the legal framework, not the licence. The right must be explicitly revoked by the licence else it still stands.
Basically impossible in the case of the kernel, they would have to ask literally everyone who has ever contributed even a single line of code to the project to waive their potential copyright rights along with a few other things such as patents.
Won't comment on GPLv2 vs. GPLv3 in this specific case but I do find it interesting how highly corporations kvetched about the very weak anti-tivoization clauses of the GPLv3. See attached .jpg and .webm. Full talk by Bradley Kuhn at: youtube.com/watch?v=nfLcUccWSco .
You should look up UNCITRAL model law for private international contracts. If you can get through the first 40 pages (not including table of contents, faggot), it'll blow your god damned mind. The words you're looking for are "ex aequo et bono".
see
Blake Anderson
isn't jailbreak a thing because legaly you own the device. so you can do whatever you want with it?
Dominic Sanchez
DMCA says you can't break any DRM, no matter if you own thing or not. Special exceptions were made just for jailbreaking smartphones.
Jaxson Long
This is like trying to save Linux by nuking it. Sure, it would get rid of the CoC problem, but it would require development to start on a separate GPLv3 kernel or something.
Connor Collins
If someone sold you a Consumer product already loaded with GPLv3 software then they have to provide you with a way of unlocking (i.e jailbraking) the hardware so you can install your own software. They don't however have to babysit you on your newly installed GNU/Hurd OS.
Why would the companies who are the real ones forcing this COC onto the kernel want GPLv3?
Gavin Perry
DMCA says a lot of shit and many of them has no sense. also replacing all software in "that" hardware doesn't break any DRM. so still you can do whatever you want. wipe it and replace.
Daniel Thompson
While I'm all for getting rid of SJWs in tech, if I understand things correctly, that course of action will most likely have the side-effect of killing the kernel too. Moreover, there's nothing stopping SJWs from infecting future forks (or any future project for that matter). Yet more proof that politics is the cancer that is killing tech.
Julian Roberts
if this becomes a thing. methods to avoid CoC will be introduced in new forks. Anyway. Even if is not optimal I kinda like this solution.
I wonder what will happen if Linus decides to blow himself up too.
Killing Linux now would be a fantastic victory. At this point it's completely subverted and there's no way to recover it. If you can use a sourced earth policy on every thing SJWs touch soon people will fear you more than them. If people fear you destroying their software and costing them a shit load of money (income and lawyers) then they will start listening to your requests.
You have to become digital terrorists if you want them to listen to you. Other wise you're just another person whining with no power while they get subverted to "be a good person, support trannies".
Liam Lewis
the process in could be modified to apply to the linux kernel itself in a forked relicensed project. the "Kernel is too big to switch licenses" line was always a myth. Public notice of a change in license is a thing. Make the rebuttal difficult but doable, and see if anyone cares enough (hint: they don't, especially in Europe) to fight you on the relicensing.
They wouldn't. GPLv3 cripples corporate interference/takeover. They're very much against this move.
The kernel died with Linus' departure. 4.19-rc4 is the last version. Whatever comes afterwards is a corporate shell of its former self.
I wish this guy wasn't 100% correct. Unfortunately, we should listen to him.
It really goes to show that the gpl was made by stallman to steal software and the labor from programmers. First gpl doesn't allow someone to sell their software, now you can't relicense software once licensed. How people fall for stallman is astonishing.
You probably shouldn't. Better to surprize attack rather than give them find to find a way around it.
Connor Stewart
I don't like the guy either, but does he really have any less of a point?
Christopher Turner
It originated from a fucking kernel mailing list, where do you spread it from this point?
Benjamin Green
Exactly how do you guys intend to accomplish that?
Jacob Robinson
Find a bored lawyer who feels like suing every last faggot on the planet who ever touched Linux while you're code was in it. Patent trolls can do it so why can't others? Enough people do it and suddenly it becomes toxic to touch Linux and hopefully all of open source where this shit happens.
You make linux dangerous.
Evan Howard
Speaking of Mike, see one of the original lead Nexuiz devs attempt to relicense others contributions from GPL, then give up and write a new game with same name.
Blake Butler
I think you people making this argument are missing the point.
It's not so much "fuck you and fuck this CoC, I'm going to nuke everything", it's "hey fuckhead, if you fuck me over with this dumb CoC shit I have legal recourse--I'm packing up and taking my code with me". Which I think is entirely reasonable, assuming it's actually legal.
If I was contributing to the project and I suddenly got kicked out for "misgendering" somebody or some other dumb shit, you can fucking bet I'd want to revoke my contributions to the project. As I've seen put elsewhere,
Nah, fuck that.
Caleb Russell
Since unconditionedwitness doesn't want to be identified, we have to trust him as much as any random anonymous poster on the internet. In other words; an anonymous shitposter with no known credentials is trying to get us to prove him right.
Trust me I'm smart, my IQ is 137. Why do you doubt me?
Fascists like yourself will never win. The future is female.
Aiden Fisher
It doesn't matter who he is if the message itself has valid points. That's the nature of an anonymous imageboard; which strangely you do not seem to understand.
If he can be proven "right" or we can find a legal option for ejected contributers, then so be it.
Joshua Wilson
It's clear user is trying to get people to quit trying. Why would anyone be scared if it's a bunch of bullshit? Clearly it has merit and they just don't want you to go digging into it. I am getting some serious déjà vu right now.
Jason Walker
Even a lawyer's opinion is only worth so much without cases. You're right insofar as there is no argument by authority to be had here if you're not a lawyer but If contributors start getting the boot over this and fight back that could change.
Owen Myers
I am getting some serious déjà vu right now. It sounds like you didn't take your soy today user. Return to the soy canteen before you say something dangerous.
If this isn't sarcasm, eat a motherfucking gun, you commie piece of shit.
Benjamin Gomez
Y'all are so concerned with the spooks infiltrating Linux and puttting in backdoors that you aren't realizing they could just use your own fear and hatred to get you to destroy it yourself. If people start pulling code from this project and rescinding their licences you're doing the bidding of the people who want Linux to die.
Charles Rodriguez
...
Gabriel Foster
It's not revoking license. It's your rights under copyright to decide how your creations are used and interaction of that with GPL. v3 specifically forbids taking your code back if I'm understanding correctly but v2 does not.
Parker Torres
His interpretation of the law is frankly bullshit. Were he a lawyer, I might be willing to believe him over my intution, but he isn't, so into the trash it goes.
Eli Reed
Why bother making the distinction? It's the internet; almost no one is an actual lawyer. Then again, you don't necessarily have to be a lawyer to understand the legal ramifications of something.
A bit funny how you then use a source which contends someone on the internet getting consult from "a lawyer" is somehow more reputable a claim.
that's you right now.
I'm going to tap out now because I am much more interested in seeing how this unfolds.
Grayson Hernandez
You're under no obligation to believe him, but it's the purpose of discussion to investigate as individuals. Dismissing because of your personal perception of non-authority of the author doesn't contribute to the thread.
Gabriel Cruz
Because GPL v3 allows you to rescind your copyright, which means that you can reliscense the whole project under something else entirely with the GNU foundations cooperation. This is all so that the linux kernel can be reliscensed along with the rest of the open source software under redhat's control.
And yet the present is genderless, anonymous, without any identity to get in the way of what we say and what we do. And so it is you who is the fascist, who resents a sincere egalitarianism and seeks political control over others, in both private and public affairs, far beyond the sphere within which one works. And that is why you will lose, because ultimately you operate as petty tyrants, infiltrate as parasites, and have no achievements of your own, only identifying vicariously with the achievements of others while you have no achievements of your own. That is why you receive no respect, and that is why a meritocratic system is such anathema to you. Because when your respect is determined by your achievements, those who have no achievements and can only falsely claim credit for others' work through the most tenuous association, will naturally receive no respect and will not be appreciated or tolerated when they make their absurd demands.
There is no reason to attack meritocracy save that you lack the ability to achieve any merit and yet demand respect regardless.
Caleb Peterson
Burn it all. They wanted a war. Let's give it to them.
Brandon Myers
That would never be allowed to happen. Too much corporate money invested in Linux right now. Most likely some company like RedHat or possibly even Google would step in.
Carter Young
Find a competent IT lawyer that wants to make a name for himself as the guy that took down Linux.
Matthew Roberts
Good, burn the fucking thing to the ground.
I could write multiple posts about how awful Linux is for anyone who has to do anything serious with it and how we could have something far better but I would just be beating a dead horse, the real argument for using the Samson Option is what said. You put the fucking fear that you are more than happy to destroy everything if they should even look at you funny and they wont try to screw you over, if there is one thing you must understand about SJW types its that they are extremely cowardly and lack all sense of honor. They test you at first, if you show weakness then they dive on you, but if you rip their head off (figuratively speaking) they leave you alone.
Brandon Garcia
Microsoft up to their usual shenanigans, stop falling for FUD
Daniel Thompson
The problem is if this rescinding works, it can be done at any time, regardless of the existence of the CoC
Zachary Miller
OYVEY
NO SURVIVORS fuck your laptops you'll use the kernel anyway 99% of servers of every major company use linux and they are obligated to follow copyright, and moving over to windows or apple would cost a combined trillions of dollars.
Cameron Walker
Except that's exactly what it needs to be.
Elijah Cooper
who cares, this is what they get for lining their pockets with corporate money demanding gplv2 so they can use linux for botnet
Colton Moore
That word doesn't mean what you think it means in the tech industry.
The bald ghoul in this picture always makes me retch. Teach Chads how to code, we need them to shove these faggots into lockers. That's the way it should be, baby.
I know this is you Mike and I just want to say, you are an epic troll, I love you (no fag obv.), well done. May you be rewarded with many virgins.
Dylan Peterson
It's already dead.
Jeremiah Walker
That's fine. Think of it as a beautiful, blonde, blue eyed babe from a long, pure bloodline breeding with a nigger and then getting killed by him.
if you don't stay vigilant and pure, then your past achievments will simply fall through your fingers like sand.
the important thing is to use this truth as a weapon and shame everyone who bends their knee to the mentally ill/jews.
Evan Harris
the most feminine thing a woman can do is bring children into this world. but that's not what "feminism" and "liberalism" pushes, now, is it?
No, it is not.
Jason Jackson
While this is cool as fuck and the amount of salt that would flow from this if it happens would be beyond industrial accident levels I get the feeling that any dev who gets banned and attempt this will be threatened with a full brigading and blacklisting from the industry so a lot will go fullcuck like linus did and let them keep their code.
Anyway, no matter what happens now the fact is FOSS is now bleeding to death and the real winners here are the megacorps like google and microsoft who get to make more money out of this.
Legal question tho: why if they dont ban anybody and just bully devs to quit? do they still have rights to their code if they quit?
If you own something you can do anything you please with it. cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html Only jews say otherwise.
Jaxon Peterson
They probably already made enough money already anyway, if they're that good.
Austin Phillips
Probably sarcasm, but Hah, good fucking luck with that. 99% of women can't resist being emotional when it comes to making logical decisions and are willing to tear everything down for their feelings.
Jacob Murphy
Both ahmed and chong beg to differ
I mean I would, no shits given, but a lot of people in FOSS treats this as a sort of foster family rather than what it really is (a bunch of autismal coding) and they freak out at the prospect of having to leave
Joseph Hughes
I believe your link is outdated. DMCA (and WCT for the rest of the world) was implemented in 1998, Just after Windows NT 4 mentioned there was released. It prohibited circumvention of DRM and steamrolled a lot of other rights too. After years of political activism and legal battles it was amended here and there, but we are still being fucked over by it.
The shitstorm was huge, lasted for 20 years already and still ongoing, how do you not know any of this? Was you living under a rock somewhere this whole time?
Charles Smith
There's no evidence that unconditionedwitness is MikeeUSA. You have a nervous sjw replying with nothing but a statement with no backing. The other person linked to was sound in his legal reasonings, as well. Bruce Perens nervously shut him down, because he didn't understand private international contract law. Also, you are definitely not a lawyer. But thank you for the extra breadcrumbs. It seems that people are trying to wake up people within compromised Free Software projects (Assange stated Debian was compromised years ago).
Bah. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt up until this point. Now you're playing disinfo games.
Yes, you silly nigger. Spread this shit far and wide.
Why does everyone think writing an affidavit, and sending three letters over the course of 30 days, is somehow rocket surgery? Administrative process is so simple, *lawyers* can do it.
This is actually how the previously most popular Minecraft server software was killed. Mojang revealed, around the time that Microsoft bought them, that they'd previously bought out the Bukkit project, and that they were going to implement a bunch of nofunz commie changes. One of the contributors to the project rescinded the GPL on his contributions, and DMCAd their site. Bukkit died overnight, although a previously established and independant fork was allowed to continue.
If even Microsoft was unwilling to fight this, then it may well be an effective strategy.
Bentley Collins
It's common sense, why do you need a normalfag celebrity to validate it?
SUPREME VICTORY We've found the weak point to strike from, gentlemen. Time to start reading UNIDROIT and learning how to file a claim.
Not Mike. Just another attorneyfag living in a separate jurisdiction worried that my kernel has been compromised. There are more of us than you think. Also, I don't think MikeeUSA is the guy in these posts. Both dudes know their shit, though.
This is the biggest weak point. If we can make the kernel legally unuseable for microsoft to meaningfully take over (by either switching the kernel licence to GPLv3, or reimplementing in a GPLv3 kernel), or even straight-up unuseable due to chunks being ripped out (How many parts of the kernel is currently-being-called-a-rape-apologist Ted Tso responsible for, for example?), Microsoft has won a battle that only ended in a new kernel rising from the ashes of the old.
People need to understand this. Linux is already gone. the last version was 4.19-rc3. The last stable version was 4.18.7.
Have you ever read worldstarhiphop's comment section, and looked at the racist posts? they don't sound like whites. they sound like what blacks think whites sound like when being racist. Similarly, your post sounds like what a chanfag *thinks* an SJW would say in here.
The solution to this, of course, is a pseudonymous git repo set up by/run with icelandic/seychelles email addresses and hosting, preferably with an Eepsite and Hidden Service gateway. Far away from subpoenas, so long as they don't do any human trafficking. If you want the fame, you have to deal with what publicity brings. Otherwise, you submit with a signed key, and the only people that know who you are are fellow conference attendees and people that have your resume. To your question: If they bully people to quit, it's going to be through the CoC. LKML is not a place for the weak-spirited. These people aren't bullied; they're blackmailed.
twitter.com/wikileaks/status/454246967124963328 says Assange was talking about bugdoors from upstream components, but that doesn't exactly disprove this guy: igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-debian-is-owned-by-the-nsa/ considering how many of us witnessed how openssh was intentionally crippled in debian for years, and how systemd's forced adoption led to half the team resigning. So it's still fair to say the project is compromised. Especially seeing how Ian Murdoch was driven crazy and suicided.
