>>105796598 https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/105796225/#q105796598
The issue is that uses the g_nix 1 setting: which precaches all the weapon models. in the [Special} DM 8: which is in xonotic--maps.pk3 /data/maps/campaignxonticbeta.txt
(pk3 is a zip file, you can read it via mc (midnightcommander), or find the file and extract it)
(if you put it in ~/.xonotic/maps/ then it will override)

> >models/weapons/v_mp5asubmachinegun.md3: could not load texture "*white" (frame 0) for shader
>"white"
> >SZ_GetSpace: overflow
> >Client "Player1" dropped
>Killed
> >devilspie: no process found
> >sh: 1: xwit: not found

As you can see: the github Code of Conduct we don't use, mind-melded itself into this process, because people keep claiming that
1) we have a code of conduct (we don't)
2) we use github (we don't)
3) we can log in to github (we can't : banned)
Which created a Tupla which, each time our project is run, sits next to you while you play it.
Because people keep claiming THEIR github account THEY made on eight-chan and added a code of conduct to: applies to OUR actual sourceforge project.
(Same way they "take over" every other project from the actual owner/programmer/dev.)

It detected "white"
and then
Killed.

--------------------------------------------------------

A hotfix is to remove g_nix 1 from maps/campaignxonticbet...txt

A code fix would be to conform g_nix to:
> g_defaultstartsomegunsweaponset is "2" ["2"] set the allguns weaponset for LMS, CA, etc
>g_defaultstartsomegunsweaponset_fllw_wpn_pkups is "1" ["1"] follow g_replace_weapon_pickups for LMS/CA/ weaponset

Which doesn't apply to g_nix at this time.
Which would limit g_nix to just a "normal" weapon set instead of all 200+ weapons.
Not as fun.... but within the original intentions of the g_nix setting.

A third option is to disable precaching all weapons used for g_nix.

>>105796598
>https://sourceforge.net/p/chaos
>esque
>anthology/xonotic-data.pk3dir/ci/f098298221b0297e497361e1d93f306aa3c90e3a/

You now have 3 options for g_nix: using g_nix_limit
0 : you crash
1: g_nix now uses a weapon set (default, and similar to the original way)
1.000____1 to 99999____9: a limit is set to how many weapons to use (eg 200 would be a good setting)
0.1 ... 0.999... : a rate is used: what percent of weapons to randomly use.

1 is now the default.
0.1 is fun though.
g_nix_limit 200 would also work

>>105804090 (OP)
https://gitlab.com/SSS8555

>>105804090 (OP)
Virus

Nice Code of Conduct you got there, Mikee.
https://github.com/MikeeUSA/ChaosEsque-Anthology/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md

>>105804090 (OP)
Zoomer derangement syndrome.

>hates zoomers
>wants to marry a zoomer

>>105796598 https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/105796225/#q105796598
This issue has been fixed
There is now a new release at:
>https://sourceforge.net/projects/chaoses
>queanthology/

>>105805564
I do not have a github account.
I was banned for anti-feminism within 3 days the one time I tried to have one.
ChaosX does not have a code of conduct.
Codes of Conduct violate the GPL by adding additional restrictions no envisioned by the original copyright holders.
Just because you put them in another wrighting doesn't change that.
Copyright holders should rescind their license from Code of Conduct enforcing entryist people. If you can call euniches people. Which you cannot since they have willfully rejected YHWH's free gift of continuing life: by chopping their dick and balls off. Mutilating that which does not belong to them; nor was ever intended to be.

>>105805618
Cute little girl.
Forever young in the immoralized picture.
Before the word "Zoomer" existed at all.

>>105806886
>Codes of Conduct violate the GPL by adding additional restrictions no envisioned by the original copyright holders.
you are obviously not a lawyer

AI Overview
Whether a code of conduct violates the GPL depends on its
specific terms and how it is applied, but a common interpretation argues that codes of conduct can conflict with the spirit or intent of the GPL's core principles of software freedom.
Here's why some see a potential conflict:

Emphasis on Freedom: The GPL is based on the idea of four essential freedoms for software users: to run, study, modify, and redistribute the program. It aims to ensure that software and its modifications remain free for everyone.
Copyleft Principle: The GPL's "copyleft" mechanism uses copyright to guarantee these freedoms, preventing restrictions on modification and redistribution.
Code of Conduct as Restriction: Some argue that codes of conduct, if broadly interpreted or applied in a way that limits a user's ability to participate in the community based on factors unrelated to their code contributions, could be seen as imposing "further restrictions". This could be seen as infringing on the freedoms guaranteed by the GPL, which states that a licensee "may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein".
Enforcement of GPL: GPL violations typically focus on matters related to source code distribution and licensing, such as failing to provide source code or applying incompatible licenses. A code of conduct, while important for community health, operates in a different domain (behavior) than the core licensing requirements of the GPL.

In summary:
The GPL focuses on the freedom to use, modify, and share software code. A code of conduct focuses on social behavior within a community. A potential conflict arises if a code of conduct's terms are seen to limit participation or the exercise of GPL rights based on factors outside the scope of the license itself.
Important Note: This is a nuanced area of discussion within the open-source community, and the legal implications of a code of conduct in relation to GPL are

>>105806886
>Copyright holders should rescind their license
you can't rescind the gpl

>>105806911
>you are obviously not a lawyer
GPL is not a fully integrated document.
4 corners rule does not apply.

I am a lawyer.
You're a lay person.
Which is why you think Codes of Conduct are fine "they're in a SEPERATE document"

>>105806915
>you can't rescind the gpl
Yes you can, in the USA and the UK.
From free takers.

You paid nothing for the license, it is a bare license and can be revoked.

>>105806926
I am a lawyer, unlike you. The GPL can't be rescinded and adding a Code of Conduct to a GPL licensed project is fine.

>>105806933
where is the court case?

>>105806911
>you are obviously not a lawyer
I'm a member of the NY Bar.
<---------
Yes, I am a lawyer.

Codes of Conduct are an end-run around the clear intent of the Copyright holders who allow others to use their work under the GPL.
A court would not be fooled.

>>105806943
anyone can make a card like this. prove that you are a lawyer.

>>105806937
>I am a lawyer
You're a woman. You'll say anything you're paid to say.
>, unlike you.
I am a licensed attorney and a member of the NY Bar.
>The GPL can't be rescinded
Yes it can be, from free takers.
>and adding a Code of Conduct to a GPL licensed project is fine.
No it is not. There is a reason Codes of Conduct did not exist for the first 20 years of the GPL.

>>105806941
The NY copyright cases which established that a paid-for copyright license contract could not be revoked without a revocation clause allowing that: the reason being that consideration was paid and it was not simply a bare license.

In the case of the GPL: nothing is paid: and thus there is no support for a non-revocable copyright license contract.

>>105806954
I've posted time and time my cards.
No one else ever has.
Go look at the archive.

You keep asking because you hope one day I'll miss something and fail to censor.

Remeber when you claimed you disbarred me?
When did that happen?
Did they just humour you over the phone?

>>105806967
>lose argument
>sperg out and ramble like a schizo
The bar would have never allowed a schizo to be a lawyer.
Take your meds.

>>105806974
And yet I am a lawyer.
I passed the bar exam.

Your reasoning is not that of a lawyer.
So: as I said: you're a woman: you'll say anything you're paid to say.

>>105806968
>I've posted time and time my cards.
They are fake.
>No one else ever has.
I'm not claiming to be a lawyer.
>Go look at the archive.
No.
>You keep asking because you hope one day I'll miss something and fail to censor.
I'm not a retard trying to prove to be a lawyer.
>Remeber when you claimed you disbarred me?
Are you aware that there are many different people posting on 4chan?
>When did that happen?
In you schizoid delusions.

>>105804090 (OP)
>steal quake code
>claim it as your own
stinky thief

>>105806941
Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc.

>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

Additionally in another case, the Sony vs Hacker case; where the hacker transferred over the copyright to his GPL'd work to Sony:
the Judge was about to allow Sony to revoke the license universally: however the hacker complied and removed the Work from the internet himself.

>>105806977
You are not a lawyer though.
You did not pass the bar exam.

Your reasoning is that of a schizo.
So: as I said: you are a schizo: you'll say anything you're delusions tell you you say.

>>105806985
I never claimed Quake as my own.
I always said this is a mod.
Try building a city like that in vinalla quake. It won't happen: as it lacks the QC code I wrote.

You can make the same sort of city in Autocad though.

>>105806992
I'm a licensed attorney.
A member of the NY Bar.

You've never said what was wrong with the reasoning.
You never will.

Just name-calling.

>>105806991
You are not a lawyer. I am a lawyer though.

Robert JACOBSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Matthew KATZER and Kamind Associates, Inc. (doing business as KAM Industries), Defendants-Appellees.

>Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where profit is not immediate. See Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir.2001) (Program creator "derived value from the distribution [under a public license] because he was able to improve his Software based on suggestions sent by end-users.... It is logical that as the Software improved, more end-users used his Software, thereby increasing [the programmer's] recognition in his profession and the likelihood that the Software would be improved even further.").

>>105806992
Notice you ignore this. You asked for a case. A case is given. You ignore it since it runs counter to you assertation.
>Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc.
>>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

>>105807001
You're citing dicta to me.
Lol.

>>105807005
>dumb and retarded schizo keeps repeating stupid nonsense over and over
I already refuted your nonsensical claim that there is no consideration involved.

>>105807001
I am a lawyer.

The fact is that none of those things were bargained-for consideration.

If I ask for an apple, and you give me a pear; you cannot claim to have a binding contract.

>>105807010
>get proven wrong
>deny reality and seek refuge in schizoid delusions
you are not a lawyer
you did no pass the bar exam
your cards are fake
you are not white

>>105807018
>The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however.
A lawyer can't read. You can't read. This proves that you are not a lawyer.

>>105807027
>A lawyer can't read.
Sorry, I meant to write: "A lawyer can read."

>>105807015
No you have not.
The programmer licensing his (and it is HIS work: not HER, they XER, not THEY's: HIS) work under the GPL has not asked the licensee to provide him with:
>reputation
>fame
>market share
nor
>economic benifits

He has asked for nothing.
There is no contract.
Also Jacobsen, IIRC, is about some other alternative contract that one can enter into instead of just the Bare GPL.

That is: the court is talking about GPL+some other agreement. Which trips you up. From memory

>>105807040
you are wrong. you are saying that a US judge doesn't know the law, whereas some retarded schizo LARPing as a lawyer knows it better.
DELUSIONAL

>>105806886
>additional restrictions
A Code of Conduct has nothing to do with the rights licensed to you under the GPL.

>>105806886
>Codes of Conduct violate the GPL by adding additional restrictions no envisioned by the original copyright holders.
i never thought i'd be even appearing to defend a cock of conduct, but i thought coc's were about how people act within project development spaces? that is, how they talk to other devs and the like.
i'm not a lawyer, but i'm pretty sure the GPL only cares about the released code. a coc saying you can't call another dev an idiot has nothing to do with the code, like it's not a restriction against the code itself, the gpl doesn't care about restrictions with regards to making contributions /in specific private spaces/

now it does of course depend on the contents of said coc, and i'm not familiar with many, but i haven't seen one that plainly violates the gpl itself

>>105807048
>>105807051
you are replying to a schizo.
just tell him to take his meds.

>>105807027
The cases you cite offer the licensee the option of paying for the licensee, IIRC (it's been some time since I read them).

The dispute is about some licensee deciding not to use the paid license, and then using the GPL.
Then the licensee claims it doesn't have to follow the GPL because it didn't "agree to anything".
It tries to argue that federal copyright suit is not the proper course of action, and to settle this in state court.

The Judge reasons that the licensor can choose weather to follow a contract theory in state court: since the licensee could have chosen the paid-for license (on the web portal), or could have taken the GPL'd bare copyright license.

It's up to the licensor to decide which theory to persue. Not up to the licensee.

That is what I recall of the case, when I read it years ago.

>>105807061
>The cases you cite offer the licensee the option of paying for the licensee
wrong
>Jacobsen holds a copyright to computer programming code. He makes that code available for public download from a website without a financial fee pursuant to the Artistic License, an Aopen source@ or public license.
YOU
ARE
NOT
A
LAWYER

TAKE
YOUR
MEDS

>>105807048
>>105807051
The original Copyright holder intended his GPL'd work to be freely worked on by whomever wishes.

Codes of Conduct attached to said Work, years later, by 3rd parties: add additional requirements such as speech codes not intended by the original party.
capturing the Work and making it hostage to such restrictions.

A court could understand this.
Yes it's a violation of the Copyright owners rights.

>>105807074
I am a lawyer, and I am going from memory.
I allready wrote about Jacobsen here years ago.

I am a licensed New York Attorney.

Bare copyright licenses are revocable from free takers.

>>105807084
>I am going from memory
You are a schizo, you're memory is fucked.
>I allready wrote about Jacobsen here years ago.
you were wrong years ago too
>I am a licensed New York Attorney.
wrong
>Bare copyright licenses are revocable from free takers.
wrong

>>105807048
>>105807051
A Copyright holder has the right to control Derivatives.

A random 3rd party does not have that right.
Codes of Conduct effectivly control derivative works in a way the Copyright Holder did not intend.

Impinging on one of his rights.
White cattle are too dumb to understand this and accept it.

>>105807091
>you're
Sorry, I meant to write: "your're"

>>105807078
>>105807098
You don't have to abide by the CoC, thus it's not an additional requirement.

>>105807091
>Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc.
>>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

Argue against it, dipshit.
And yes: I am a lawyer.

Other lawyers I've talked to all agree that bare licenses are revocable.
One works on a Copyrights and Patents book for westlaw.

>>105807078
>The original Copyright holder intended his GPL'd work to be freely worked on by whomever wishes.
agreed, but a coc doesn't prevent this, a coc only pertains to the space it's attached to
like say if some github repo of a gpl program has a coc, you can just fork it and work on it freely on your own. the gpl /only cares about the code/
a coc is not a license addendum, it doesn't apply to forks or modifications

>>105807114
The space it's attached to has become, in reality, the controller of the copyrighted work.

A court would understand this.
That that 3rd party has gained de-facto control over the Work (which it doesn't own).

Basically effecting a conversion.
Not that >>105807101 would know what that is.

It is an impingement upon one of the Copyright holders exclusive rights.

>>105807113
>muh consideration
There is consideration though, see >>105807001

>>105807124
>The space it's attached to has become, in reality, the controller of the copyrighted work.
nice schizo delusion

>>105807124
>The space it's attached to has become, in reality, the controller of the copyrighted work.
no

>>105807124
>>105807127
and don't get me wrong, i do know what you meant, but no.
there's often a "de facto" party that controls the most popular source of distribution and development of a piece of code, but that's beside the point of the gpl. the gpl again literally only cares about the code. as long as you CAN copy and develop it with only the restrictions laid out in the gpl alone, it doesn't care. it's just a license, not a social framework

>>105807114
>like say if some github repo of a gpl program has a coc, you can just fork it and work on it freely on your own. the gpl /only cares about the code/
Incorrect. The GPL governs the behavior of the licensee to the sub-licensee/down-the-line-licensee.
Example: "you may not enact furthur restrictions not enumerated in this document" (paraphrased)
That's a restraint on the licesee vs down-the-line licensees
(which: Grsecurity ignores and violates freely)

Codes of Conduct are similar.

>a coc is not a license addendum, it doesn't apply to forks or modifications
It is effectivly an addition of additional restrictions; which are forbidden by the Copyright owner's license (the GPL).
It adds consequences that do not exist in Copyright owner's given license for conduct not governed by the copyright owner's given license.
Where-as the Copyright-owners' given license expressly forbids adding such restrictions between licensee and sublicensee.

Which the Code of Conduct entryists ignore.

Especially where the Code-of-Conduct enforcing entity has effectively taken the entire space where other contributors could conduct their business. (pre-empted/Taken over the field)

I can't take this schizo seriously at all.

>>105807141
>Grsecurity
They debunked your schizoid ass and your retarded butt buddy bruce perens years ago.
https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part1
https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part2
https://grsecurity.net/setting_the_record_straight_on_oss_v_perens_part3

isnt that the shizzo who worked like 10 years on his game and it still looks like this

>>105807150
>Bruce Perens is not a lawyer. Perens did not graduate from law school, nor did he graduate at all from any university.
LOOOOOOOOL
that reminds me of someone....

>>105807139
A court would not be fooled.

Controling derivative works is an exclusive right of the Copyright holder. Code of Conducts seek to wrest that exclusive power from the Copyright holder and put it in the hands of 3rd parties.

They do so by punishing other licensees or potential licensees who run afoul of their edicts. Since they are attached to a Copyrighted work : this implicates the Copyright Owner.

He has the right to take action against that if he chooses. It is a copyright violation.

>>105807154
you can just fork it and remove the code of conduct though

>>105807141
what you need to understand is that even "de facto" source code repos are effectively just personal repos. there's no difference between your own clone of a repo and the repo "everyone uses" outside of how many people use it.
there's no "controlling" gpl code, there's the original writer, the copyright holder, but anyone else is just someone who copied it

>>105807150
Grsecurity debunked nothing.

>>105807153
I am a lawyer, I did graduate from law school, I did graduate from a college, and I have a law license and am a member of the NY Bar.

Bare licenses are revocable by the grantor.
The GPL, in it's normally used form, is an example of such a situation.
Control of derivative works is an exclusive power of the Copyright owner.

3rd parties cannot overtake this power.
Codes of Conduct, as they are typically found, are violations of the Copyright owne'rs exclusive rights: and are a Copyright violation: and a court could easily see that.

>>105807174
>I am a lawyer, I did graduate from law school, I did graduate from a college, and I have a law license and am a member of the NY Bar.
delusional
>Bare licenses are revocable by the grantor.
wrong, see >>105807001
>Codes of Conduct, as they are typically found, are violations of the Copyright owne'rs exclusive rights: and are a Copyright violation: and a court could easily see that.
wrong, see >>105807161

>>105807154
actually, what i want to to know is, what do you think /should/ happen? like any repo hosting gpl code should just accept any MR no questions asked? just totally automatic, nobody in control at all. total chaos.
i'm sure that'll turn out well.

>>105807190
yes, see: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/commit/dfe75fc56c723da5626f7b318aaa9cb4b05e84da
Mikee accepted this even though he is an incel.

>>105807163
>>105807161

I've been programming for more than either here.

A court would look at the actualities
When one third party is in a lynchpin position and has monopolized some project: outside of the consent of the Copyright holders: and is stifiling the free exchange that the original copyright holder set forth in his GPL licensing out of his Work: it is clear that a violation of the Copyright owners right regarding control of derivative works has been userped.

Where the Copyright owner ellected to decree that the Work be freely trafficked and edited by all and without restriction; and envisioned a collaborative fastion in which this is to be done without furthur restrictions:

When a 3rd party overtakes the field and then imposes; by whatever manner; such restrictions: it is a violation of the Copyright owners exclusive right.

yes Codes of Conduct by 3rd parties, when attached to a Work they are not owners of; are a copyright violation in the case of GPL licensed works. And most other works.

>>105807204
why did you add a code of conduct to your own project?
https://github.com/MikeeUSA/ChaosEsque-Anthology/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md
you violated the GPL by doing that. I rescind your license from you since you didn't give me consideration.

>>105807199
That is not my repo: I do not have a GITHUB account.

>>105807190 I do not have a github account.
That account is from eight-chan and was made for a "convert everything to ponies" fork and angry eight chan user made so as to cast a false light on me (which is why he used my normal username).

Which is a tort. (false light)
This user >>105807199 knows such about that github account, and continues to paint me under a false light by constantly attributing said "CoC'd github" to me.

>>105807218
i'm the second anon, "github" is just an example, i'm speaking in general

>>105807218
who is this "eight-chan"?

>>105807213
Because that is not my account, dipshit: and you know it. You are defaming me. and putting me in a false light.

I've always used sourceforge.
As I said: I've been programming far longer than you.
>https://sourceforge.net/p/chaos
>esque
>anthology/
Is the project.

No code of conduct.

>>105804090 (OP)
Nexuiz/ Xonotic drama, that's some ancient stuff. Someone keep me up to date

>>105807223
https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/commit/296a690d04e9b040656ab1a73742947c40a51995
>MikeeUSA committed on Jul 19, 2013

>>105807220
What typically happens, as a pattern, is that a third party adds a Code of Conduct to the project.

Attaching it to the Copyrighted work of another.
And then enforcing it against various contributors and would-be contributors.

That is: the original Copyright holders are now absent.
A 3rd party comes in, adds additional rules that the original copyright holders never agreed to.
And then enforces those rules.

It is a complete violation of the Copyright holders right to control derivative works.
That's how it works in the real world; and that's what a court would deal with.

>>105807220
>>105807218
also i apologise for using github as an example, i was not aware of a github account impersonating you.

>>105807234
you can just disregard the code of conduct.

>>105807229
That is not my account and never has been.
My account was on sourceforge, not github:

https://whatwillweuse.com/2009/10/13/not-in-my-neighborhood-mikeeusa-removed-from-sourceforge/
https://geekfeminismdotorg.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/psa-mikeeusas-hate-speech-and-harassment/
https://geekfeminismdotorg.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/mikeeusas-code-now-available-on-geekfeminism-org/

GPCSlots2 was written in 2002, not 2013

>>105807247
>That is not my account and never has been.
>My account was on sourceforge, not github:

>>105807239
>you can just disregard the code of conduct.
History has shown you can't.
A court would not be fooled.

Additionally it is an additional wrighting.
Which impinges on the Copyright owners rights by claiming to beable to control conduct that the Copyright owner expressly deemed non-sanctionable: and to be left alone. The GPL states: no furthur restrictions are to be placed on sub-licensees. This is the language the Copyright owner decided to endorse.

The Code of Conduct does put furthur restrictions on sub-licensees; while being emplaced by those not owning the Copyright to the Work.

Such as : speech codes.
Enumerating classes of persons wanted
and
Enumerating classes of persons not-wanted.

Against the Copyright holders permission.

>>105807234
i'm starting to understand your frustration with it. so your code was forked on github, and they added a coc to their fork, which you disagree with.
unfortunately, the gpl doesn't prevent this, because a coc doesn't modify the license. anybody can still fork that copy and remove the coc, it has nothing to do with the license.
releasing code under a free license means you've accepted that contributions may not align with your preferences. if you only wanted contributions that align with your preferences, what you want is an "open source" license, not a free license, that is, where people can /see/ the code, but can't release modifications of it without your approval

>>105807257
Yea: the github shit has never been my account: and you know it.

You are committing libel.
I will kill you dead for it.
This is a direct threat of death to you: from me.

>>105807264
>The Code of Conduct does put furthur restrictions on sub-licensees
The GPL does not allow sublicensing.
Once again you have proven that you are not a lawyer.

>>105807267
-- and to be clear, this is assuming a typical coc that only pertains to developer interation conduct, and doesn't try to alter the license, a coc that does try to restrict how the code is used and/or by whom is a gpl violation

>>105807267
>i'm starting to understand your frustration with it. so your code was forked on github, and they added a coc to their fork, which you disagree with.

Correct on that point.
They impersonate me: intentionally: and started this on eight-chan openly.
Then they cast me in a false light as a CoC supporter: by pointing to the fake account they made to defame me as one of them.

Licensing Grant
---------------

All source files (as defined by the respective license) in scope of this
document are under the GPL version 3 or any later version, at your choice.

The source code of the game engine, DarkPlaces, is licensed under the GPL
version 2 or any later version, at your choice. Furthermore, some source code
inside the qcsrc/ directory may also be usable under other licenses as
indicated by COPYING files therein.

The two relevant licenses are provided in the files GPL-2 and GPL-3 in this
package.


Source Code Download
--------------------

Current and past Xonotic source, including tagged commits containing source
matching any official Xonotic release, is available on
git://git.xonotic.org/xonotic/



someone do a tl;dr for me.

>>105807270
>I will kill you dead for it.
>This is a direct threat of death to you: from me.
I already told you years ago where you can find me. I'm still alive, dumb retard.

>>105807270
>I will kill you dead for it.
>This is a direct threat of death to you: from me.
not him, but don't say that. this is genuinely illegal to state and is against 4chan rules

>>105807274
Which is why I said sublicensee/down-the-line-licensee.

Dipshit fuck.
The GPL claims that all licenses come from the original copyright holder. And none from the licensee to others.

hence you quip "GPL doesn't allow sublicensing!"

The courts, when talking of the GPL, have called down-the-line-licensees, sub-licensees however.

So what do you say to that dipshit fuck?
Nothing, you'll just ignore it.

>>105807264
>The GPL states: no furthur restrictions are to be placed on sub-licensees.

>You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of **the rights granted or affirmed under this License.**
The GPL does not grant you the right to add code to Android's kernel repo.

https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/notes/githubstaff.txt
When are you suing Github btw?

>>105807290
>So what do you say to that dipshit fuck?
That you are not a lawyer and have no idea what you are talking about.
The only thing that you have extensive knowledge about is on child marriage.

>>105807292
Controling derivative works is an exclusive right of the Copyright holder: regardless of license.

Which the Code of Conduct enforcers have taken for themselves. That's why it's a Copyright violation: they impinge on one of the Copyright owners exclusive rights.

Additionally: The license language the Copyright holder has CHOSEN in this instance is the GPL: which states the licensee cannot impose any "furthur restictions not enumerated in this text" (parapharased) on SUBLICENSEES (I USED THE WORD) / Down-the-line-licensees

Which furthur clairifies that the licensee does not have the right to add any other rules.

Which the Code of Conduct adding licensees do do: and often where they have taken over the field regarding the Copyrighted work in Question.

That is: They act as an Agent of the Copyright holder: without permission and without him asking them to. They impose restrictions on the practical creation of derivative works; AGAINST the Copyright owners express wishes.

It is a violation.
Just as Grsecurity is a violation.

The CoC enforcers engage in censorship, banning, libel, falselight, and various other torts to make sure they are the only practical real-world avenue regarding the Copyrighted Work.

A court would weigh this real-world circumstance vs the theoretical proper working of the GPL.

Anyone can read a proprietary book in their mind and have a "private fork" in their head. When they cannot meaningfully engage regarding another work because a 3rd party has interfered against the wishes of the Copyright owner: it cannot be said that there is no impingement against the Copyright owner who has "GPL'd" this now captured Work.

>>105807276
have you contacted github support regarding their impersonation of you? "mikeeusa" isn't something you could stumble upon by accident, and if it's not you and especially is in some way trying to make fun of you, that has to be at least in violation of some github tos, if not potentially illegal

>>105807318
wrong, you can just ignore the code of conduct. it is not a restriction.

>>105807321
he has: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/tree/master/notes

>>105807297
When I have 700k to 1kk that it would take for a federal copyright case from start to finish.

>>105807314
I am a licensed attorney in New York.
I am a lawyer. I am a member of the New York Bar.

Bare licenses are revocable absent consideration.
You paid and did nothing to get your GPL licensed work: it was a freely given license: which is the whole reason people download the Copyrighted Works licensed out under these licenses.

>>105807321
>have you contacted github support regarding their impersonation of you? "mikeeusa" isn't something you could stumble upon by accident, and if it's not you and especially is in some way trying to make fun of you, that has to be at least in violation of some github tos, if not potentially illegal

I DMCA'd them. They ignored it and told me to sue them; essentially.
GitLab and another one complied with the DMCA take down.

>>105807335
>I am a licensed attorney in New York.
>I am a lawyer. I am a member of the New York Bar.
already debunked in this thread

>>105807321
Have you ever heard of the first amendment?

>>105807341
Yeah, gitlab and bitbucket just comply with invalid dmca takedown notices.

>>105807332
The codes of conduct are effective because they cannot be ignored due to the network effect regarding the captured Work.

Which is the whole point of why they are effective.
You know this and are just a gawking liar and libelist.

And as I said: I will kill you. I've told you this again and again as you continually put me in a false light as a "hypocrite CoC supporter!" and you do this because that is the one thing your god, Jesus, had a problem with ("hypocrites").

>>105807341
eh, this is where the law becomes a bitch. github being owned by microsoft these days means suing microsoft.
if they're going to take that stance, then you do have to look at the practical reality of it.
i've never been in such a position, but if i had to choose between a long-held personal nickname and suing fucking microsoft, i'd probably just change my nickname. not so easy if many people know you by it for sure

>>105807347
There's nothing invalid about it: I cited the case where pen names could be used.

MikeeUSA is my pen name.
Which you've approprated for your libelious "oh look he's a hypocrate" git hub account. Which you flaunted on eight-chan's /tech/ board in 2012 or so.

>>105807361
>The codes of conduct are effective because they cannot be ignored due to the network effect regarding the captured Work.
dude just remove it.
rm code-of-conduct.md
git add .
git commit -m "Remove Code of Conduct"

>>105807367
I'm going to torture and kill the guy. That will be my remedy. He's a christian nationalist white guy.
He hates me because I'm pro loli bride: which is YHWH's law.

>>105807371
> Hi MikeeUSA,
>
> Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> for reference.
>
> This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
> signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
> reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
> complaining party."
>
> Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
> monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
> email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
>
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
> process it expeditiously.
>
> Thanks,
>
> GitHub Staff

>Which you flaunted on eight-chan's /tech/ board in 2012 or so.
eight-chan launched October 22, 2013 (11 years ago)

>>105807372
The Copyrighted work is effectivly captured by the people ruling over it via the Code of Conduct.

You're just being a disingenous little shit. You know the network effect exists. You know the CoC enforcers rely on it. You know a court can see that too.

>>105807380
>I'm going to torture and kill the guy.
you won't, see >>105807281
>He's a christian nationalist white guy.
huh? I'm a fedora tipping atheist.

>>105807383
Pen names were found to be fine in a different case, which I cited.

They ignored it.
They're telling me to sue them.

>>105807390
There is no "network effect", schizo.

>>105807396
>Pen names were found to be fine in a different case, which I cited.
wrong, you have already proven that you can't read, see >>105807027

>>105807391
>huh? I'm a fedora tipping atheist.
All your views are from the New Testament.
(women's rights (no stone woman), no child brides (millstone), transexualism (matthew 19: greek)
Including the war against YHWH ("your father is the adversary: he was a liar and murderer from the begining", "he is the god of this world")

The God of this world is YHWH according to the old testament psalms.

>>105807416
>All your views are from the New Testament.
I never read it.
>(women's rights (no stone woman), no child brides (millstone), transexualism (matthew 19: greek)
sounds good to me, 19 year old matthew knows what's up.
>YHWH
wtf is that?

>>105807407
>There is no "network effect", schizo.
Yes there is. You can't refute that so you name call.

>wrong, you have already proven that you can't read, see >>105807027
No dipshit: I read those cases, Artifex, Jacosoben, etc.
Bare licenses are revocable absent consideration.
Additionally: you cannot force some random "gift" as your "consideration". Dipshit.

I explained that in the cases you cite: the licensee had the option of taking a paid-for license. Or the GPL, or the Artistic license (as was the case in one). Oh you didn't notice that did you.

>>105807435
>Bare licenses are revocable absent consideration.
There is consideration, see >>105807001

>>105807424
Your athiest views are taken in whole cloth from the New Testament; distilled; and given to you.

Though you claim you "dont know" where they came from: that is where.

>>105807440
NO there is NOT consideration, dipshit fuck.
You giving me a pear when I asked for an apple is NOT bargained for consideration.

You giving me anything: when I asked for nothing: is NOT consideration.

this schizo is based, he brings a bit of the old 4chan spirit back to the tranny and right-wing cuckold infested nu4chan

>>105807441
ok, so what?

>>105807447
>muh food analogy
are you an obese american? just read: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/08-1001/08-1001-2011-03-27.html

>>105807452
Jacobsen v katzer did NOT achieve what you are claiming it achieved, yes I read the case.

1) you are relying on dicta from a 9th circuit suit: Jacobsen v. Katzer
The 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the Artistic License was /not/ a contract, and was instead a simple copyright license. It found that the lower court erred in construing the Artistic License as a contract, and reversed the lower courts finding: telling the lower court that the Artistic License is not a contract.

That is, if anything, supportive of the "revokists" position. ("Not a contract")
The passage you are relying upon is a thought experiment one of the judges went through where he waxes poetically about the Linux Kernel project and his general appreciation of the opensource ethos. It is not controlling opinion: nor an opinion at all: simply dicta about an issue that was not before the court at that time. Also note: The 9th circuit's decisions are binding only on California etc.

Basicall, you read some article claiming that the unrelated dicta in the case was a binding opinion, and you believed that: because YOU are not a lawyer (and neither was the paralegal who wrote said article). You simply don't know the difference between dicta and binding opinion, nor do you understand the jurisdiction of various circuit appellate courts.

>>105807452
Wrong. They can sue for copyright infringement. There is no contract between a copyright holder an a free-licensee, at all, whatsoever. There is no consideration paid, and no contact in existence.

The appeal of Jacobsen-v-Katzer found that the lower court was wrong and that the Artistic license was not a contract: only a copyright license.

Secondly, dipshit FUCK, Jacobsen-v-Katzer is 9th circuit only.

>>105807470
>trust a US judge
or
>trust some schizo LARPing as a lawyer on 4chan
yeah, that's a hard choice.

>>105807470
>>105807474
why the double post?

>>105807475

Artifex v. Hancom does not say what you think it says. It is dealing with an offer by a company that the customer either PAY for a COMMERCIAL license __OR__ ellect to use the GPL.

The court found that the company could proceed under a Contract theory to recover Contract damages OR choose to follow a Copyright theory and pursue Federal Copyright damages (GPL).

That is: the Court allowed the Copyright owner and offeror of the Commerical License Contract to DECIDE if there was a breach of Contract (no payment for the Commercial license) OR if there was instead a Copyright violation only (Violation of the GPL).

It did not decide that the Gnu General Public License was, on it's own, a Contract.

>This is explicit in GPLv3: "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."
>in short, its not revocable

Wrong. That is an illusory promise. It has NO effect if you are a free-taker.

>Jacobsen v. Katzer
Have you read Jacobsen v. Katzer? The 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the Artistic License was /not/ a contract, and was instead a simple copyright license. It found that the lower court erred in construing the Artistic License as a contract, and reversed the lower courts finding: telling the lower court that the Artistic License is not a contract.

That is, if anything, supportive of the "revokists" position.

>>105807480
Jacobsen was a case involving the Artistic license, where the lower court was /REVERSED/ by the Higher Court: the Higher Court finding that the Artistic license was /NOT/ a contract and was a simple copyright license. So you're wrong there too.

>>105807475
I'm a licensed attorney: and you didn't read the case, nor follow up on it.

>>105807482
>>105807488
bro, you are not a lawyer. you are not writing legal advice.
everyone agrees that the GPL can't be rescinded.
you are not a lawyer.
you have schizophrenia.

>>105807491
>128 F.3d 872, 882
>and
>344 F.3d 446, 451
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract. Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).


>https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=faculty_scholarship
>For the same reason, a licensee's commitment to use offered software in a particular way cannot constitute consideration. Because the licensee has no right prior to the license to use the software in any way, a grant of only limited uses of it is merely a gift. The fact that the giver could have been even more generous by granting use of the software with no restrictions does not alter this conclusion. It is still the case that the licensee has not given up anything. Only if the licensee gives up some right, says contract law, will there be valid consideration.


>p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the
>plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee
>were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the
>license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending
>the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest
>is revocable."
>--Lawrence Rosen
>https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/013148787


> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases
> code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
> --David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:


>However, nonexclusive licenses are revocable (meaning the copyright owner can revoke the license at any time) in the absence of consideration.

>>105807491
Fordham university doesn't agree.>https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1592&context=faculty_scholarship
>For the same reason, a licensee's commitment to use offered software in a particular way cannot constitute consideration. Because the licensee has no right prior to the license to use the software in any way, a grant of only limited uses of it is merely a gift. The fact that the giver could have been even more generous by granting use of the software with no restrictions does not alter this conclusion. It is still the case that the licensee has not given up anything. Only if the licensee gives up some right, says contract law, will there be valid consideration.

Lawrene Rosen didn't agree

>p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the
>plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee
>were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the
>license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending
>the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest
>is revocable."
>--Lawrence Rosen
>https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/013148787

University of Minnesota doesn't agree
> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases
> code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.
> --David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:

>>105807492
>more schizo ramblings
>using amazon as a source
yeah, you are not a lawyer

>>105807498
nice double post. why though?

>>105807491
I am an attorney licensed in New York.
Yes I am a lawyer.

The GPL is revocable form free takers.
>you are not writing legal advice.
Never said I was: you aren't a client. You are a libelous enemy.
Who I will kill dead.

>>105807504
>The GPL is revocable form free takers.
wrong, see >>105807001
>Who I will kill dead.
you won't, see >>105807281

>>105807503
You are now ignoring 3 lawyers cited:
-David McGowan
-Lawrence Rosen
-Fordham University (atleast 1 lawyer)

And are just calling me schizo for citing them.

Bare licenses are revocable.

>>105807513
I am a Supreme Court Judge, I hereby order you to take your meds. *toy wood hammer hitting wood sound effect*

>>105807509
I will kill you.
You've put me in a false light for years as a "hypocrite: see he uses a Code of Conduct!"
I'm going to kill you for this.

>>105807520
You are a feminist: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/gpcslots2.pl#L1391
sub nosexism {
print colored('>>>>ABEVTUGFSBEJBZRANYYYVOREGVRFSBEZRA>>>>ABEVTUGFSBEJBZRANYYYVOREGVRFSBEZRA>>>>',"$boldblack on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored('Just Say No To Sexism ',"$boldred on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$red on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$boldred on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$red on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$boldred on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$red on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$boldred on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$red on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$boldred on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$red on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$boldred on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";
print colored(' Just Say No To Sexism ',"$red on_$bgcblack"); print"\n";

>>105807519
Now you just ignore them again and change the subject. As I said:

You are now ignoring 3 lawyers cited:
-David McGowan
-Lawrence Rosen
-Fordham University (atleast 1 lawyer)


> [...] The most plausible assumption is that a developer who releases
> code under the GPL may terminate GPL rights, probably at will.

>p278 "Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the
>plaintiff will almost certainly be the copyright owner. If a licensee
>were foolish enough to sue to enforce the terms and conditions of the
>license, the licensor can simply revoke the bare license, thus ending
>the dispute. Remeber that a bare license in the absence of an interest
>is revocable."

>For the same reason, a licensee's commitment to use offered software in a particular way cannot constitute consideration. Because the licensee has no right prior to the license to use the software in any way, a grant of only limited uses of it is merely a gift. The fact that the giver could have been even more generous by granting use of the software with no restrictions does not alter this conclusion. It is still the case that the licensee has not given up anything. Only if the licensee gives up some right, says contract law, will there be valid consideration.


Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc.
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

>>105807537
They are all wrong, see what a real judge has to say about this: >>105807001

>>105807533
That's not my github account.
I was banned and my code taken down because my original version says
"Just Say No To Women's Rights"

Also I hereby rescind your license to use GPC-Slots2 and any version there-of.

>>105807547
>Also I hereby rescind your license to use GPC-Slots2 and any version there-of.
You can't though. Github's lawyers agree with me.

>>105807539
No, they are not wrong.
The 3rd circuit federal appeals judge is right:
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

Not your lower-court judge in the 9th circuit: who was REVERSED by the 9th circuit appelate judges.

>>105807559
9 > 3
learn your natural numbers, schizo

>>105807555
Yes I can, and I just did (again) (as I revoked on eight-chan too, from you).
GPC-Slots2 is my work that I wrote.
You have no rights or claim to it.
I rescind your license and I am not granting you any other licenses.
I will sue you or kill you.

>>105807564
Appelate Judge's decision
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).

is more persuasive than your lower-court decision that was reversed.

>>105807567
How often can you rescind a license?
>GPC-Slots2 is my work that I wrote.
No, I made it. I signed it with my pgp key: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/public.pgp
My pgp key is older than yours. You are the impostor

>>105807519
I would have gone with *comically oversized inflatable plastic gavel hits desk and squeaker inside squeaks*

Oh, it's that Rust fork. How is it going Alice?

bump

>>105809204
Why?

>>105809224
because as shit as this thread is, it's 1000x better than shitter, AI, apple, amd, nvidia, browser, etc. threads

QRD on this Chaos whatever game shit and this Mikee nigger?

is it just another schizo chud seething over trannies?

>>105809446
https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/MikeeUSA

shit game

>>105809462
based. thanks QRD anon.

>>105804090 (OP)
>mikeeUSA thread

Reminder that OP is a wannabe ghetto kid.
https://youtu.be/xSXWfLoTTJo

>>105810779
lmao is that actually MikeeUSA?

>>105809446
>is it just another schizo chud seething over trannies?

He's a kike schizo obsessed with child brides and pretends to be a lawyer from NYC.

>>105810779
>>105810907
holy fuckin kino.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnIxHUZOHQg&list=PLdMwejCUao7GsA0FfRCqo_lmdrPKqy8bJ&index=1&t=2m44s
he's more nigger than an actual nigger.
thug shit.

>>105810779
>this here took a lil code we done put in

>>105806890
pedo

>>105804090 (OP)

humiliation ritual

>>105804090 (OP)
Mikeeeeeee get aids
In the time you spent unable to move on with your life I was able to start a career and family. It's been over a decade your fucking loon get it together.

>>105804090 (OP)
you can't just marry little girls, you sicko

>>105811835
He's using a voice changer to cover his retard voice pattern, I see hints of him ending his words with a wa similar to how downies talk on TV.

y'all on some drugs or shit god damn

>>105813186
Not enough drugs, actually. Mikee could use a heroic psychedelic dose to cure his mental illness.

>>105813175
>He's using a voice changer to cover his retard voice pattern, I see hints of him ending his words with a wa similar to how downies talk on TV.
Nope dipshit, just audacity.

>>105807576
GPC-Slots was made in 2002, not 2013, dipshit.

>>105813132
>Mikeeeeeee get aids
>In the time you spent unable to move on with your life I was able to start a career and family. It's been over a decade your fucking loon get it together.
It's not your family since they can leave you at any time.
Also no loli brides makes it all work and no valuable play.
I know married men.
They're not happy.
Their riden.

You pay the price: but don't get the reward: and think you've won. So does a mule.

>>105811835
Thank you for the complement, >>105813175 is trying to take it away.
But I don't see any youtube videos from him we can critique.

what the fuck is going on in here lmao

>>105813703
> what the fuck is going on in here lmao
Like you don't know, samefag; on this board/node with about 12 people.


Go fuck yourself.

Aw sweet, schizo "lawyer" thread

>>105813899
> Aw sweet, schizo "lawyer" thread
Fuck off, same fag, you've allready been here.

The GPL is revocable.
CoC's violate the Copyright holder's exclusive right to control Derivative Works.
They are a Copyright violation against any Copyright holder that did not OK or envision a Code of Conduct attached to their Work. An additional wrighting added by a 3rd party; attached.

On occasion, someone here asks me for QuakeC help.
They then damn me as a pedophile, jew, etc, and speak of millstones, ropes, and seas.

Should I accept this trade offer?

You are not a lawyer.
You have schizophrenia.
You should take your meds.

lol russian pedonigger thread

>>105804090 (OP)
this guy will NEVER EVER EVER use a new screenshot to shill this project

>>105814288
I'm not even sure what it is. I just know that Xonotic is a dead as fuck arena fps and that OP is a looney.

>>105814288
>this guy will NEVER EVER EVER use a new screenshot to shill this project

What would you suggest?
Isn't a majestic expanse of cityscape the best screenshot?

It suggests that the game will scale to whatever you want to fight in.
Don't you want to fight in places?

>>105815471
not him, but it doesn't really communicate what the game is
it looks like a randomly-generated simcity 2000 map opened up in simcopter

I just searched for your game in google because I was curious, but then I found out that it has a code of conduct.
https://github.com/MikeeUSA/ChaosEsque-Anthology/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md

>>105804090 (OP)
I seriously cannot tell if this a botpost or some schizoposting.

Can someone give me a QRD?

>>105817712
Schizo he has been at this for almost 20 years now
I might have dated myself but he never stops never tires and does the same bit

>>105813593
This would be faster.

>>105817724
Alright, but what the fuck is his rambling even going on about?

>>105817735
Nothing of value he's just like the maid schizo but not a gay tranny faggot and can actually code

>>105817735
He's off of his meds again.

>>105817781
>and can actually code
But just don't ask him any questions about QuakeC because he will just go apeshit about something else.

Do your fucking job jannies.

>>105817847
Too bad. I genuinely want to discuss QuakeC, but the schizophrenia is ruining it. /vr/ is the only sane place for such a topic.

>>105817781
>can actually code
uuuuhm, about that...
https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/gpcslots2.pl

>>105817876
>Too bad. I genuinely want to discuss QuakeC, but the schizophrenia is ruining it. /vr/ is the only sane place for such a topic.

True. Those guys are more about Doom and its various sourceports but they are very welcoming. Tools for Quake are harder to work with simply because they aren't given as much attention AND Doom's tools work better on Linux.

>>105818086
What the fuck is this single-file monstrosity that makes my CPU fan spin?
Mik... the author of that ought to be so ashamed that only suicide can redeem them.

>>105806890
That's a boy. Afghans fuck little boys.

Why can't AAA make every building enterable

>>105818086
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKK

>>105818086
What in the stupid yandere-dev fuck is a goin' on here?!?