arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/tech/ - technology

Name
Email
Subject
Comment

formatting options

File
Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit. https://archive.arisuchan.jp/q/res/2703.html#2703

Kalyx ######


File: 1559456806602.png (856.14 KB, 2724x1206, cirno2.png)

 No.2621

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8317#comment-2238862 (Archive link: http://archive.fo/emkVd )
A commentator asked on Eric S. Raymond's website:

>ESR: Eben Moglen suggested that he was going to write a paper refuting the notion that "The GPL is revocable":

>
>>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.
>https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/26/718
>
>Why has no such paper from him materialized?


ESR response was shocking, blunt, and to the point:
>esr on 2019-05-30 at 08:08:23 said:
>
>>Why has no such paper from him materialized?
>
>Because Moglen is either wrong about or deliberately misrepresenting the law and the "revokists" have it right. Thank you, I had already figured this out from his (non)responses on lkml.

 No.2625

GPL

 No.2631

GP FUCKING L

 No.2633

There is already a thread about this.

 No.2634

>>2633
Where?

 No.2638


SpyTec13 SnoovatarSpyTec13

This is the start of a beautiful thing. Say something nice, or share a cat fact.
Today
selandro2 Snoovatarselandro212:11 AM

https://www.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/bw46rx/eric_s_raymond_gplrevokists_have_it_right/

redditr/redhat - Eric S. Raymond: [GPL]"revokists" have it right.

r/redhat: Discussion for Red Hat and Red Hat technologies!

Bet you don't like that

BET YOU DON'T WANT THE GGGGGPPPPLLLLLLL TO BE REVOKE()ABLE!!!!!!

But IT IS!

(From free takers)

Imagine, one day, a Linux Paragon awakens, and being a NEET INCEL is UNHAPPY. And then HE (it's always a he)… RRREEEVVVVOOOKKKEEESSSSSS with a few keystrokes to the L K M L

How would that.. make you feel?

 No.2645

What exactly is this thread for? Why should we care if the GPL is revocable? If a person wants to take away the GPL from their software and re license it all the power to them. It should be about the creators wishes. I think you are just trying to upset people, and seem to be kind of upset yourself at the lack of people who are upset by what you are doing.

Nobody cares about GPL, if people want, they will create GPLv4 and fix the bug, but I don't think anyone really cares.

 No.2646

What's the solution to OP's picture?

 No.2647


 No.2648

>>2646

The proof is pretty trivial and common, just google for it and the solutions will come right up.

 No.2649

>The proof is pretty trivial and common, just google for it and the solutions will come right up.

Go back to stack exchange.

 No.2650


>What exactly is this thread for? Why should we care if the GPL is revocable? If a person wants to take away the GPL from their software and re license it all the power to them. It should be about the creators wishes. I think you are just trying to upset people, and seem to be kind of upset yourself at the lack of people who are upset by what you are doing.

>
>Nobody cares about GPL, if people want, they will create GPLv4 and fix the bug, but I don't think anyone really cares.

GPLv4 won't fix the "bug": free is free. If you paid nothing you have no contract.

 No.2654

Why are you people posting in a MikeeUSA thread?

 No.2660

>>2654
>Why are you people posting in a MikeeUSA thread?

Not your anti-army, anon.

 No.2692

>>2645
>What exactly is this thread for? Why should we care if the GPL is revocable?
There was some drama like a year ago when the Linux kernel project introduced a controversial Code of Conduct and developers who knew it was going to be used to victimize them for having the wrong skin color/gender/sexual orientation/political opinions wanted to revoke code they had previously contributed to the project in protest.

This sparked a legal debate about whether revoking your code is allowed. Note that copyright and license are two separate things. Conflating them is what usually prevents people from penetrating the topic.

I don't know why this thread is being posted now though. I would have thought someone has actually put their money where their mouth is at this point instead of everyone just engaging in speculation masturbation.

 No.2698

>>2692
>This sparked a legal debate about whether revoking your code is allowed. Note that copyright and license are two separate things. Conflating them is what usually prevents people from penetrating the topic.

Your missing a topic: contract law.
One needs to know all three to come to a conclusion.

Most programmers are familiar with none of them.

A non-exclusive copyright license cannot be held to be a transfer of rights, so this knocks out one counter-argument.
A license is not by-itself a license-contract. The license is the thing you are trying to "gain". This is another thing programmers are confused about: some think they are "giving" "code" when they are granting a license to use that code instead.
A contract, which promises a license as payment, can be functionally irrevocable outside of the terms of the contract when it comes to consumer licensing contracts.

Where this intersects with the "GPL Debate":
When someone puts their work "out there" under the "GPL" they are:
Granting a non-exclusive license.

What they are not doing is:
creating a contract with a third party.
transferring rights.

Thus, like any such license to use property (real, personal, etc etc), where there is no contract, and which cannot be construed as a transfer: the license can be terminated at any time by the grantor.

 No.2699

>>2692
>I don't know why this thread is being posted now though. I would have thought someone has actually put their money where their mouth is at this point instead of everyone just engaging in speculation masturbation.

No one's been kicked out yet, and the programmers are meek and tight-fisted. They'll probably wait until someone gets shown the door before they revoke.

 No.2700

A contract, which promises a license as payment, can be functionally irrevocable outside of the terms of the contract when it comes to consumer licensing contracts. (This is when there is payment from the consumer to the rights-holder for receipt of the license). This has little relevance to the GPL: who's main feature, to the consumer, is the uneccesecity of paying anything to receive the license: No-Consideration-Required is it's main feature.

 No.2704

Imagine an orc with a club. You have to explain to him why this is vital to his existence as a developer.

 No.2705

File: 1561203284746.jpg (13.54 KB, 474x379, programmer.jpg)

>>2699
>No one's been kicked out yet, and the [engineers] are meek and tight-fisted. They'll probably wait until someone gets shown the door before they revoke.
I think Ted Ts'o came closest for the crime of expressing a nuanced opinion on a controversial subject.
https://www.itwire.com/open-sauce/84627-after-linus-torvalds,-sjws-are-now-coming-for-ted-ts-o.html
https://archive.fo/AqWCz

He wrote half of the ext filesystem code though so people probably came to their senses when they realized that having a Linux kernel with ext2/ext3/ext4 support is slightly more important than scoring virtue points with social "justice" crybabies who cant code or never even heard of Linux.

>>2698
>What they are not doing is:
>creating a contract with a third party.
GPL is not a contract so contract law is irrelevant, correct.
https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/

>When someone puts their work "out there" under the "GPL" they are:

The legal situation gets a bit more complicated when your add the Linux Foundation and employers into the mix though. It's not just one guy pushing code to his zero-star github repo.

 No.2710

>The legal situation gets a bit more complicated when your add the Linux Foundation and employers into the mix though. It's not just one guy pushing code to his zero-star github repo.

The commentator explained all that, regarding work-for-hire, where it does and does not apply vis-a-vis programmers etc (this gets into state law). He made it clear he was speaking to those who did _NOT_ sign over their code to their employers/who do not have employeers (the hackers, who own the original linux code), or to the employers themselves: he was talking to the rights-holders: be they the programmers (as in the hobbits) or the various employers who's kernel-work is being threatened (TSO is in this category). Derivative works were also touched upon (simply re-writing the hobbiest's code after throwing them out and suffering a rescission counter attack, is not a valid strategy: the rewritten code would still be derivative of the rescinded work).

Some employers expressed, on the chans, interest in revoking in solidarity with the likes of TSO if it came to that.

 No.2711

>>2705
The employers were actually the most interested in revocation if the "CoC" was used as a weapon. They were not happy with the "CoC".

 No.2712

>>2704
>Imagine an orc with a club. You have to explain to him why this is vital to his existence as a developer.

His standing and livelyhood is threatened if he doesn't have that club. He needs the club, even if he isn't going to go on the offensive himself.

 No.2720

>>2710
>The commentator explained all that
No he (>>2698) didn't say any of that actually. It's also no use pretending you're someone else when you are the only person to leave

giant

gaps

between

quotes

and

response

>programmers

You keep using this word. I don't think you know what it means.

 No.2742

>>2720
On the LKML the commentator did indeed "explain all that".

> >programmers

>You keep using this word. I don't think you know what it means.
The non-employee gratis contributors to the linux kernel. They are programmers: and they own their own code. Go and FUCK yourself snarky piece of soykaf.

 No.2818

>>2742
>On the LKML the commentator did indeed "explain all that".
Obviously nobody understands what you are referencing so why not link to the post id or url?

>The non-employee gratis contributors to the linux kernel. They are programmers: and they own their own code.

A programmer is a device for writing code to ram or flash (e.g. the stlink from >>2705 ), not a human being who writes code.



[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]