>>>/g/106505365
Look dipshit: you are claiming that
>DURRR EDITING IS CONSIDERATION FOR CONTRACT!
No it is not:
1) I didn't ask you to edit GPC-Slots2
2) I didn't accept any of your edits.
There is no consideration here.
All you have done is libeled me.
I revoke the GPLv2 and GPLv3 and any other license for my copyrighted work: GPC-Slots2: from you. And I cancel any future license, any past license, any present license. GPC-Slots2 is not free-software for YOU.
>>>/g/106505409
>>106505387 (You)
> where do you post your works?
Souceforge
> I am still confused by what your beef is.
> So you made a program, and put it under GPLv2.
> What are these other people doing with the code that you say is against the license?
I have revoked the license of my feminist enemies: which I may do under US Law.
They are not protected from revocation because they didn't pay me anything and thus do not have a copyright license contract.
Any "promise" made in the GPL of any version is Illusory: just as any "promise" made in any other contract is non-binding before it is paid for (by money, or a promise to do something, or actually doing what was asked that wasn't required by law).
Not infringing my copyright, which by default is "all rights reserved", is required by law
>Pre-existing duty rule.
Editing my code, using my program, etc is banned by law.
It is only my permission that makes it "ok".
However I have been given nothing for this permission, nor did I seek anything.
So there is no contract between me and my feminist enemies.
I have now recinded any permission my feminist enemies have had, and informed them of it.
As what they "had" was a bare license.
>344 F.3d 446, 451
>("[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)
4chan Search
3 results for "3e9b4aea61b22390c70464b6bacab173"
I have revoked the license of my feminist enemies
>>81892945
It's called detrimental reliance.
They said anyone is welcome to contribute code.
They said they believed in freedom of speech and only code matters; neither belief nor conduct matter.
Loli loving Paedophiles and Furries then did code, for free, for them, based on these princapaels for 15 consecutive years of their life.
Then they were banned for being loco for loli, and wanting to FUCK little virgin girls: a right given to them by the God YHWH.
The project continue to use the code and media of the ejected parties.
No they are not allowed to do this:
Induce action based on promises (freedom of speech, thought, only code matters, not conduct or belief)
Receive work-product based on those promises.
Break that promise.
It's called detrimental reliance.
They said anyone is welcome to contribute code.
They said they believed in freedom of speech and only code matters; neither belief nor conduct matter.
Loli loving Paedophiles and Furries then did code, for free, for them, based on these princapaels for 15 consecutive years of their life.
Then they were banned for being loco for loli, and wanting to FUCK little virgin girls: a right given to them by the God YHWH.
The project continue to use the code and media of the ejected parties.
No they are not allowed to do this:
Induce action based on promises (freedom of speech, thought, only code matters, not conduct or belief)
Receive work-product based on those promises.
Break that promise.
>>105825648
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?
Because it is an illusory promise.
You can transfer your copyright to another person just as you can gift your watch to another person: but then it is theirs exclusively.
(Note: Under the copyright statute you can claw it back after 30 years or so).
You cannot bind yourself to a promise for free however.
"I promise not to revoke the permission to do X with my property from Y, for nothing"
"I promise not to sue X for copyright infringement, for free"
Which is what the opensource licenses (some of them) pro-port to do.
GPLv2 doesn't even try though (v3 does).
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?
Because it is an illusory promise.
You can transfer your copyright to another person just as you can gift your watch to another person: but then it is theirs exclusively.
(Note: Under the copyright statute you can claw it back after 30 years or so).
You cannot bind yourself to a promise for free however.
"I promise not to revoke the permission to do X with my property from Y, for nothing"
"I promise not to sue X for copyright infringement, for free"
Which is what the opensource licenses (some of them) pro-port to do.
GPLv2 doesn't even try though (v3 does).