YHWH allows child brides.
Marry little girls.

Oppose Brian Lunduke: the goy-sheparding would-be Jesus of our time.

Why do christians think it is an honour an a privledge to the programmers that they choose to use other people's programming work for free? And that because they, christian feminists, use Linux: they get to fire/ban whatever programmer they wish to fire. (who worked for free)

For being pedos, for not being millstoned to death by Jesus.
Why do christians get to control the hacker hobby?

YHWH allows child brides.
Jesus allows feminists, and hates males. And called YHWH the adversary (satan).

>>105933532
>Why everyone that jew Stallman has written any code since like 1976?

He wrote most of his code in the 80s,
the Gnu C Compiler and Emacs,
and various unix utilities.

Pedophiles are not permitted to contribute to Darkplaces nor Xonotic.
>"The nominee is quoted as saying that if the choice of a sexual partner were protected by the Constitution, "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia" also would be. He is probably mistaken, legally--but that is unfortunate. All of these acts should be legal as long as no one is coerced. They are illegal only because of prejudice and narrowmindedness."
>
>RMS on June 28th, 2003 https://stallman.org/archives/2003-mar-jun.html
>
>--------------------------
>
>"I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing. "
>
>RMS on June 5th, 2006) https://stallman.org/archives/2006-mar-jun.html#05%20June%202006%20(Dutch%20paedophiles%20form%20political%20party
>
>--------------------------
>
>" There is little evidence to justify the widespread assumption that willing participation in pedophilia hurts children.
>
>Granted, children may not dare say no to an older relative, or may not realize they could say no; in that case, even if they do not overtly object, the relationship may still feel imposed to them. That's not willing participation, it's imposed participation, a different issue. "
>
>RMS on Jan 4th, 2013) https://stallman.org/archives/2013-jan-apr.html#04_January_2013_(Pedophilia

>>105922026
>>>105922010 (You)
>>>105921992 (You)
You have no counter, so you "call" me a "glowie" so you get the last reply and people will then ignore my post because you "won" (are the last reply).

I am a licensed attorney.
Whom you reported to the FBI, and the NYBAR and tried to get disbarred.
You also took my mod off of moddb for words I said here on 4chan (pro YHWH's law: pro child bride).

YHWH allows child brides.
<-------------------
Jeremy is welcomed in Chaos.X.Anthology
RMS is aswell.

>>105826702

>>105826702
> Cirno is cute but OP is a massive fag.
"Hey I agree with you guys, but the guy saying things: he's no good!"
"Come back to the plantation!"
>"Can't refute anything:. call names"

You think you're brighter than the sun.
But you can't even approach the moon.

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.

Lolis say yes to marriage.
NPCs just throw out canned responses.