>*violates gpl*

>>106167099 (OP) (checked)
>*violates your ass*

>>106167099 (OP)
Is this Mike Shinoda

>>106167099 (OP)
Not just on the kernel, but GCC too (Gcc plugins).
FSF does nothing.
Email rms : rms@gnu.org

Made freesoftware into a joke.
GPL has not teeth now.

>>106167099 (OP)
He gets to continue his GPL violating project.
White Hans Reiser, who gave everything for opensource, gets his project thrown out for being a "mysoginist" and having a "bad name"

(it's only bad amongst women and faggots and anti-pedos)

One thing to know: Hans Reiser paid his own money to the Russian programmers, to get ReiserFS and Reiser4 running. This financial strain + the womans embezzlement lead to the killing of the whore.

>>106167099 (OP)
who is this guy and what did he do?
I remember years ago the fsf used to have a list of all court rulings that were in favor of free software to provide a strong precedent.
Not sure what happened to that page.

Why does he get to do it.
While Free software Hackers get punished by Codes of Conduct, no hacker contributions accepted anymore (ONLY corporate backed changes allowed), anti-pedo hate by feminists running the linux kernel. Banning of all discussion from the LKML. Rampant pro-christian "better a millstone" "but don't stone woman!" beliefs on the LKML, etc?

>>106168537
>who is this guy and what did he do?
He used to be a hobby hacker who teamed up with the PaX guy to make linux secure. It worked great.

Then he figured he needed money.
But no one would pay him enough.
So then he got a US Army govt contract for 100k per year.
After that he stopped public distribution of his patch to the linux kernel and GCC (plugins).
He then added a codicil to the linux and GCC licenses (GPLv2, and GPLv2+) which stated that no redistribution of PaX/Grsecurity etc is permitted: and if someone does redisribute the patches then their contract is immediatly cancled, and all monies allready forward-paid to OpenSourceSecurity is cancled.

Yes this is a violation of article 2 section 6 of the license.
The US copyright office says that original copyright owners have the exclusive RIGHT to CONTROL ___DERIVATIVE____ works.

White people here on /g/, who hate loli, anime, pedos, YHWH, and _LOVE_ Jesus Christ for opposing child brides, and abolishing YHWH"s stone-the-woman laws and YHWH's pro-child bride laws: will tell you that since it's just a patch he can put it under whatever license he wants.

That is not so: it is a non-seperable derivative work.
Linux and GCC copyright holders (hackers, and the FSF) selected the terms that there can be NO additional restrictions on redistribution of derivative works. They did this, as Linus said; so that changes (eventually) come back to them.

Adding a negative enforcable covenant is the erection of a barrier to redistribution and is a violation of that term of the copyright license permissions.

White people here will claim I'm lying and that I'm not a lawyer.
I am a lawyer.
I am also a code hacker and programmer.

>>106168537
>who is this guy and what did he do?
Remeber when Linus betrayed the hackers who helped him from 1993-2003 by adding a Code of Conduct (speech codes) to Linux?

Kinda like that, but 2 years earlier:
He betayed the linux and GCC community by adding a no-redistribution clause in a codicil of his license for his patch. And stopped all public access to his patch. AND took PaX away from us (something we had since 2001, or maybe even before then), and was successful in doing so.

It's never leaked.

>>106168537
He also bought out anyone who was trying to maintain and update the last public Pax/Grsecurity patches, using money he was given by the US government.

So that they have a secure linux: and you have dogshit.
Same reason the Code of Conduct was put in: keep the MMAALLLLEEEEE hackers (like Hans Reiser who BASEDly EXECUTED YHWH's law by STONING THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN (Jesus _HATES_ THIS) out of linux.

>>106167099 (OP)
The only way the GPL can be enforce is with a hammer or a sickle.

RMS won't even sue him.
And he has standing because this guy does GCC modules too.

But the "no standing" argument is bullshit. FSF could help the 9000 linux programmers (the old ones, who were thrown out by feminists) do a Joint Action.

>>106168609
>that fourth paragraph
Get a grip mike what the fuck lmao

>>106168537
Ask Bruce Perens to sue him
Bruce@perens.com .

Bruce was an early linux programmer. He has standing to sue. Doesn't have the money. But has standing.

Ask rms too: rms@gnu.org .

>>106168725
Brad Spengler is whiter than I; since he likes hookers not loli. It's part of the definition.

>your honor, the defendant didn’t have to provide his name, number or make any payment to obtain the software. he also did not need to accept a license to obtain the software, the license is just packed in some random text file not essential to the software.
>case dismissed.
don’t release your shit for free if you don’t want it taken

>>106168779
>make any payment to obtain the software
Which means Brad Spengler has no enforcable covenant against the linux kernel copyright holders if they rescind the license as of right instead of for breach.

And no: artifex has nothing to do with the GPL, dipshit. It's an MIT license case about an option for a commercial license. And the part you cite was partially reversed on appeal and sent back down.

>>106168779
Free or not, the US Federal Copyright office says copyright holders have an absolute right to control derivative works.

Brad Spengler has no contract with anyone who owns the copyright of Linux or GCC. So they can yank the license whenever they want: even if he is complying.

Which he is not.

>>106168808
> if they rescind the license as of right instead of for breach.
you can’t rescind something that you gave away for free
again
if you put your faggy little freetard license in a text file that no one will ever open, THERE IS NOTHING TO ENFORCE OR RESCIND.
You cannot make someone accept a contract that they have not read, retard.

>>106168779
>"preexisting duty rule does not exist"
>I can do whatever I want, you put it on the net for free

By default you have no rights to Linux nor GCC.
Dipshit fuck.
You only have PERMISSION to modify because the rightsholders have decided not to sue you (that is: without you paying anything: the GPL and MIT, and any other license: give you nothing: it's an illusory promise).

>>106168840
>if you put your faggy little freetard license in a text file that no one will ever open, THERE IS NOTHING TO ENFORCE OR RESCIND.
We agree on that: there is no license the licensee can enforce against the copyright owner. He has no rights to the software: not having paid valuable consideration or foregone a legal remedy or right in exchange for the use thereof.

He simply has no rights to modify or use the software at all.

None.
>You cannot make someone accept a contract that they have not read, retard.
Copyright licenses are not contracts.
They are permission to use property.

There exists copyright license contracts when you pay for them: when asked to do so.
You have nothing with linux.

The Linux copyright holders can say: You there: stop using linux and stop editing it.
And you must stop.


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).

I will kill you if you fuck with me dipshit. I know you're going to say "DURR U R NOT A LAWYER BABABABLA<ALAB"

I love freetard crashouts.
No one cares, not even the courts, not even RMS.
It doesn’t matter what’s written down, it matters what is enforced. Grsecurity will continue to make money and make private patches, Linux, RMS and FSF will continue to ignore it because it’s not worth their time, and you will continue to impotently seethe on a website you are ban evading on.

>>106168904
Then we'll use self help and kill them.
The civil courts exist to prevent honour killings, traditionally.
We were promised that the GPL is abour labour for labour.

We, the hackers, contributed our labour under that understanding.
If the courts will not grant us their ear.
We will kill our enemies.

And we will also kill you.

>>106168923
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/322408639/#q322410831
seek help

>>106168609
>who hate loli, anime, pedos
Anon the people who hate loli and anime are pedos. That's how this whole ecosystem works
>nooooo you cant enjoy fictional characters that makes me lose my boner knowing you can do that when I try to put my little peepee inside kids.

>>106168904
It would cost 1 million dollars to sue Grsecurity.
That is why they don't.
The attorneys fees are high for a federal bar case.

They don't have the money.
Linus never registers his copyrights on linux, and no one else does either: so attorneys fees are unavailable. It has to be registered before the violation occurs for attorneys fees to be available.

Do you not understand that?

Anyway: we will use self help if the courts won't help us.
And we will also kill you.

We were, collectivly, promised something. We did the labour in our areas of Free Software. The promise has been violated.

We will kill you.

>>106168946
Incorrect, stop trying to derail Zoomer retard christian. Get the fuck out of this thread.

People who like Loli, also like cute young girls.
All men used to go after young virgin girls: before your false god Jesus afflicted us all.

You are trying to divide and conquer.

>>106168933
We will seek self-help.
Go look up what that means, legally.
It used to be the American way.
Dipshit.

You shut us down in the courts and socially: we will have our remedy.

reminder that talking about molesting little girls and death threats are against United States law, which mr tardo so called lawyer should know

>>106168973
>just two more weeks in my 5+ years of impotent rage i-i swear i-im gonna do it
lmao

>>106168540
Maybe he is backed by some agency.

>>106168948
Based. Total kike death.

>>106167099 (OP)
Whatcha gonna do? Call the cops?

>>106167099 (OP)
he looks shiny like a rare drop