CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

[vnsndalce]

Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them 
not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to 
keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the 
use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").

They are wrong. You can revoke the license.

You were paid nothing for this grant.
The takers have nothing.

Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your 
speech, and ejecting you from your communities.

You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural 
pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling 
over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the 
woman and her state).

Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for 
yourself.

They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
(See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing 
lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily 
replaced)

But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as 
such. And you should do so.

And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on 
your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce 
Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your 
side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women 
and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of 
advertence not fixated on them.

Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

[Ivan Ivanov]

Thank you very much for this message, friend. We the people should
learn it and stop taking Cock of Conduct up our ass

пн, 31 дек. 2018 г. в 05:07, <vnsndalce@memeware.net>:
>
> Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them
> not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
> keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the
> use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
>
> They are wrong. You can revoke the license.
>
> You were paid nothing for this grant.
> The takers have nothing.
>
> Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your
> speech, and ejecting you from your communities.
>
> You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural
> pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling
> over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the
> woman and her state).
>
> Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for
> yourself.
>
> They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
> (See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing
> lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily
> replaced)
>
> But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as
> such. And you should do so.
>
> And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on
> your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce
> Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your
> side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women
> and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of
> advertence not fixated on them.
>
>

Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

[vnsndalce]

Band together as a Bloc and take action together. (Bloc revocation).
One practice note: do not send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
Do not let your lawyer send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
If a potential defendant knows that their liberties regarding a 
copyrighted work is in question
from entity X (entity X being a rights-holder etc), then they can rush 
to the courthouse
and file for a hearing to determine their rights.

They do this to give you less time to prepare your case, and to have the 
case start in
a jurisdiction that they feel is favorable to them (the CoC supporters 
will be trying
to get the case adjudicated in the 9th circuit, as they feel they have 
those
judges in their pocket - the 9th circuit absolutely hates men with a 
passion _even_
greater than the rest of America - and they like to overturn and ignore
black-letter law)

You will notice that the CoC supporters and No-Rescind group have fallen 
silent
in the last couple of months. They know they have very little to grasp 
onto,
and every one of their claims have been refuted.

Heather Meekers just gives the issue a gloss and says "lol no"
and points to a ZDnet article, where I have cited academic papers on the 
issue,
as-well as the law I learned in law school, and further studies.

Bruce Perens literally called you all replaceable.
As did Mathew Garret.
Specifically because they feel that they own your property now and they 
do not need you.

Inform them that such is not the case, in the most direct manner.

Remember: These are the people, the class, that prevent you from having 
sweet love.
They are those who uphold your legal disabilities (cannot marry cute 
young girls, as YHWH allows).
They are your enemies, and the enemies of all Men on earth.

On 2018-12-31 08:45, Ivan Ivanov wrote:
> Thank you very much for this message, friend. We the people should
> learn it and stop taking Cock of Conduct up our ass
> 
> пн, 31 дек. 2018 г. в 05:07, <vnsndalce@memeware.net>:
>> 
>> Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told 
>> them
>> not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
>> keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding 
>> the
>> use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").
>> 
>> They are wrong. You can revoke the license.
>> 
>> You were paid nothing for this grant.
>> The takers have nothing.
>> 
>> Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your
>> speech, and ejecting you from your communities.
>> 
>> You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural
>> pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling
>> over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the
>> woman and her state).
>> 
>> Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built 
>> for
>> yourself.
>> 
>> They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
>> (See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing
>> lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be 
>> easily
>> replaced)
>> 
>> But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as
>> such. And you should do so.
>> 
>> And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on
>> your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like 
>> Bruce
>> Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your
>> side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women
>> and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of
>> advertence not fixated on them.
>> 
>> 

Re: CoC loving Linux programmers swear the GPLv2 is irrevocable. They are wrong. (As are the women they wish to empower).

[vsnsdualce]

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: [gentoo-user] Re: CoC loving Linux programmers... is completely on topic.

[vsnsdualce]

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 <rdalek1967@gmail.com> 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).

[vsnsdualce]

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.