/tech/ - Technology

101010

Posting mode: Reply

Check to confirm you're not a robot
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Password
Drawing x size canvas
File(s)

Remember to follow the rules

Max file size: 350.00 MB

Max files: 5

Max message length: 4096

Manage Board | Moderate Thread

Return | Catalog | Bottom

Expand All Images


(8.71 KB 646x483 gpcs2pppppp.png)
Author rescinds GPL licensed code from "Geek Feminists" Anonymous 01/11/2019 (Fri) 01:21:48 [Preview] No. 13089
https://slashdot.org/submission/9076900/author-rescinds-gpl-licensed-code-from-geek-feminists

Reportedly, the author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.

The original author, after years of silence, notes that the "Geek Feminist" changed[1] a bunch of if-then statements which were preceded by a loop waiting for string input to a switch statement. The author reportedly noted that to use a switch statement in such an instance is no more preformant than the if-thens. Switch statements should be used where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a successive nature, for most efficient use of the jump table that is generated from said code.

The author reportedly was offended, after quiet observation of the group, that the "Geek Feminists" mocked his code, mocked his existence as a male, and never did any work on the code afterwards and never updated to include new slot machines added to the original code by author subsequently.

The author notes that he neither sought nor received any compensation for the granted license, that is was a gratuitous license, and that there never was any refutation of his default right to rescind given. (A right founded in the property law of licenses.)

The copyright owner has reportedly watched quietly as each year the "Geek Feminists" published a recount of their heroic efforts regarding his code.[2][3] Presumably he has now had enough of it all...

The author notes that the SF Conservancy attempts to construe a particular clause in the GPL version 2 license text as a "no revocation by grantor clause", however that clause states that if a licensee suffers and automatic-revocation by operation of the license, that licensees down stream from him do not suffer the same fate. The author of "GPC-Slots 2" reportedly notes that said clause does only what it claims to do: clarifies that a downstream licensee, through no fault of his own, is not penalized by the automatic revocation suffered by a licensee he gained a "sub-license" from (for lack of a better term.)

The author reportedly notes that version 3 of the GPL did not exist when he published the code, additionally the author notes that even if there was a clause not to revoke, he was paid no consideration for such a forbearance of a legal right of his and thus said clause is not operative against him, the grantor, should it exist at all.

(Editor's note: GPL version 3 contains an explicit "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, in addition to a term-of-years that the license is granted for. Both absent in version 2 of the GPL)

The author reportedly has mulled an option to register his copyright and then to seek damages from the "Geek Feminists" if they choose to violate his copyright post-hence.

(Editors note: Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can amount to $150,000 plus attorney's fees for post registration violations of a differing nature to pre-registration violations.)

[1]https://tinyurl.com/yayocsuo
[2]https://geekfeminism.org
[3]http://geekfeminism.wikia.com

GPC-Slots 2 is a text console mode casino game available for linux with various slot machines, table games, and stock market tokens for the player to test his luck. For the unlucky there is a Russian Roulette function.


Anonymous 01/11/2019 (Fri) 01:46:17 [Preview] No.13090 del
>>13089
It's been an interesting time for the GPL 2 hasn't it? With all these sjw feminist dancing around the floss community it's making more internally destructive legal problems than Microsoft did at this rate with all these people residing their code.


Anonymous 01/11/2019 (Fri) 01:53:53 [Preview] No.13091 del
>geek feminism wiki
>...
wow. It's been years since I'v heard anything out of them. Forgot they existed. Well I guess they're dead now if their blog and wiki are anything to go by. There was constant proto-gamergate culture war crap that I witnessed between a few people who would constantly link back to there years ago.


Anonymous 01/12/2019 (Sat) 05:08:54 [Preview] No.13096 del
[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists" license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]


Anonymous 01/12/2019 (Sat) 05:12:54 [Preview] No.13097 del
>>13096
It's show time!


Anonymous 01/12/2019 (Sat) 05:38:30 [Preview] No.13098 del
>>13097
Please spread the word.

And send the geek feminists notice on twitter or wherever they hang out now. Their license has been revoked.

And YES, the author CAN do that.


Anonymous 01/12/2019 (Sat) 05:40:25 [Preview] No.13099 del
A gratuitous license, without an attached interest, is revocable.


Anonymous 01/12/2019 (Sat) 23:09:53 [Preview] No.13102 del
Thoughts?


Anonymous 01/12/2019 (Sat) 23:12:23 [Preview] No.13103 del
(87.34 KB 640x960 anzu1499483608915.jpg)
t


Anonymous 01/13/2019 (Sun) 12:33:57 [Preview] No.13105 del
Great.


Anonymous 01/14/2019 (Mon) 11:03:14 [Preview] No.13106 del
>p46 "As long as the project continues to honor the terms of the licenses under which it recieved contributions, the licenses continue in effect. There is one important caveat: Even a perpetual license can be revoked. See the discussion of bare licenses and contracts in Chapter 4"
--Lawrence Rosen

>p56 "A third problem with bare licenses is that they may be revocable by the licensor. Specifically, /a license not coupled with an interest may be revoked./ The term /interest/ in this context usually means the payment of some royalty or license fee, but there are other more complicated ways to satisfy the interest requirement. For example, a licensee can demonstrate that he or she has paid some consideration-a contract law term not found in copyright or patent law-in order to avoid revocation. Or a licensee may claim that he or she relied on the software licensed under an open source license and now is dependent upon that software, but this contract law concept, called promissory estoppel, is both difficult to prove and unreliable in court tests. (The concepts of /consideration/ and /promissory estoppel/ are explained more fully in the next section.) Unless the courts allow us to apply these contract law principles to a license, we are faced with a bare license that is revocable.
--Lawrence Rosen

>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

Lawrence Rosen - Open Source Licensing - Sofware Freedom and Intellectual property Law



>p65 "Of all the licenses descibed in this book, only the GPL makes the explicity point that it wants nothing of /acceptance/ of /consideration/:
>...
>The GPL authors intend that it not be treated as a contract. I will say much more about this license and these two provisions in Chapter 6. For now, I simply point out that the GPL licensors are in essentially the same situation as other open source licensors who cannot prove offer, acceptance, or consideration. There is no contract."
--Lawrence Rosen


Anonymous 01/14/2019 (Mon) 11:11:50 [Preview] No.13107 del
Update
(quote)

>Then you should have used them.
Not necessary, the language used in the press release identifies them easily.

>should
As if I somehow can't just rescind using their names either.

License to use/modify/etc the GPC Slots 2 code is hereby terminated for. Alex "Skud" Bayley, and Leigh Honeywell.
(Note: this termination is not to be construed as a lifting of the previously issued termination regarding the "Geek Feminism collective", this termination is an addendum)

--MikeeUSA-- (electronic signature :D )

>>1019403
Their response is irrelevant.

The point is to illustrate that the copyright owner can revoke the license, and to end your "WELL NO ONE HAS DONE IT" 'argument'.
(which you are no longer making...)


Anonymous 01/14/2019 (Mon) 11:27:51 [Preview] No.13109 del
Author tries to explain (8ch thread), but this too will fall on deaf ears:

>>1019410
You will have no response to
>>1019418
I'm sure.

You will just keep saying that I cannot rescind permission to use my property.
And you are wrong.

I can and _I HAVE_ (from the previously identified people). I have that power as the owner of the work. It is not YOUR work, it is not THE WORLD's property (I did _not_ dedicate it to the public domain), it is M I N E.

I know this very well. I am studied in the law. I know the bullshit defenses non-owners try to pull against owners (mostly equity "pleees not fair judge" - usually when they don't like an increase in payments)

There is no K, I am not bound by the terms that I require people using my property to follow. If they do not follow the terms they are simply violating MY copyright and I sue for damages. If I decide I don't want them to use my property I can revoke permission at any time, then if they continue to use it: again they are violating MY copyright and I sue them for damages.


Anonymous 01/15/2019 (Tue) 02:26:47 [Preview] No.13110 del
what's the issue here?


Anonymous 01/15/2019 (Tue) 06:41:58 [Preview] No.13111 del
Any response from them yet, Mike?

I'm getting popcorn ready for this.


Anonymous 01/16/2019 (Wed) 06:56:32 [Preview] No.13117 del
>>13111
>Any response from them yet, Mike?
>
>I'm getting popcorn ready for this.

No, I can't get any site to publish the story.
Not even soylent news, the submission gets deleted immediately.

I sent press releases to the register, lwn, metacritic, tech this and that. Nothing.

Even though last time it happened was news: https://news.slashdot.org/story/08/01/26/0341210/author-of-atsc-capture-and-edit-tool-tries-to-revoke-gpl

(Note: the the distos did quietly remove that program)

There was some discussion on r/opensource with people saing "NOOO U CANNOT DO THIS", and me refuting them, explaining the law, and them just saying I'm not a lawyer (they are incorrect). Then seeing that explaining from my knowledge wasn't convicing them, I cited Larwrence Rosen's book, so they "countered" by citing a zdnet article that cited PJ the paralegal woman, who is wrong on the law.

I submitted this: https://slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl

It was rejected because "no proofs", so I submitted this:

https://slashdot.org/submission/9098318/author-announces-gpl-license-recission-on-8chan

Nothing.

So me rescinding the license, is "no proof".


Some discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/afd56g/author_recinds_gpl_slashdot/
https://www.reddit.com/r/openbsd/comments/afgdwo/author_recinds_gpl_slashdot/

If it is desired that this story catch wind, It doesn't look like I can make it so. If you can help that would be nice.

Remeber: if my little game can be rescinded from X,Y,or, Z - the gratis linux kernel contributors can do the same from the linux project who has CoC'd them. And I've explained the law and why it is so.


Anonymous 01/16/2019 (Wed) 11:24:29 [Preview] No.13118 del
>>13111

Perhaps create a /rescind/ general on 4chan...


Anonymous 01/17/2019 (Thu) 06:27:38 [Preview] No.13122 del
>>13111
If a show is desired, this has to be published somewhere. They just delete all my submissions, burying the story.

Because if I can rescind (and I can), so can the gratis linux kernel contribs.


Anonymous 01/17/2019 (Thu) 07:32:11 [Preview] No.13124 del
Sue them. Use the legal system.
Thank you, Mike. Be proud (I know you are brave).


Anonymous 01/18/2019 (Fri) 11:17:15 [Preview] No.13127 del
https://lkml.org/

>Hottest messages
Linus Torvalds Re: [Regression w/ patch] Media commit causes user...
[email protected] ... GPL revocation (GPC-Slots2): Alex "Skud" Bayley, ...
Linus Torvalds Linux 5.0-rc2
Linus Torvalds Linux 5.0-rc1
Dave Chinner Re: [PATCH] mm/mincore: allow for making sys_minco...
Linus Torvalds Re: [PATCH] mm/mincore: allow for making sys_minco...
Linus Torvalds Linux 4.20 released..
Linus Torvalds Linux 4.19-rc4 released, an apology, and a maintai...


Anonymous 01/18/2019 (Fri) 18:13:41 [Preview] No.13128 del
(191.82 KB 984x700 hottestmessglkml2.png)
>>13124
>Sue them. Use the legal system.
>Thank you, Mike. Be proud (I know you are brave).

Thanks

Message is "hottest" on lkml.org now


Anonymous 01/19/2019 (Sat) 03:19:29 [Preview] No.13130 del
while I sympathize with your cause too and would like very much to see the authors' rights enforced, I would also advice to be smart and cautious: you already know what to expect from the totalitarian mob if they know your IRL name


Anonymous 01/20/2019 (Sun) 09:06:21 [Preview] No.13131 del
You've been banned from participating in r/redhat

subreddit message via /r/redhat[M] sent 1 day ago

You have been banned from participating in r/redhat. You can still view and subscribe to r/redhat, but you won't be able to post or comment.

If you have a question regarding your ban, you can contact the moderator team for r/redhat by replying to this message.

Reminder from the Reddit staff: If you use another account to circumvent this subreddit ban, that will be considered a violation of the Content Policy and can result in your account being suspended from the site as a whole.


Anonymous 01/21/2019 (Mon) 18:42:59 [Preview] No.13132 del


Anonymous 01/21/2019 (Mon) 19:14:49 [Preview] No.13133 del
One highlight:
http://boards.4channel.org/g/thread/69460068

> Anonymous 01/21/19(Mon)11:54:18 No.69461133 ▶>>69461171 >>69461196 >>69461369
>
> >>69460325
> >>69460419
> >>69461077
> We will keep archiving these threads and eventually we will have proof. Hopefully a mod will oust you via IP logs or something of the like in a few weeks. Sage in all fields btw, I'm not contributing to your little circlejerk. You just need a nice big black cock in your face.


Anonymous 01/22/2019 (Tue) 09:24:28 [Preview] No.13136 del
>>13130
>while I sympathize with your cause too and would like very much to see the authors' rights enforced, I would also advice to be smart and cautious: you already know what to expect from the totalitarian mob if they know your IRL name

Thanks. They threatened to track me down via IP and do me in. Previously others threatened to alternatively get me dis-barred or have me arrested for unlicensed practice of law (Steve Litt of the DNG list made these two threats IIRC)


Anonymous 01/22/2019 (Tue) 09:25:43 [Preview] No.13137 del
The 4chan discussion is now archived:
https://warosu.org/g/thread/S69460068


Anonymous 01/23/2019 (Wed) 12:15:03 [Preview] No.13139 del
can someone tell me what happened and why gpl is bad in english


Anonymous 01/23/2019 (Wed) 13:06:10 [Preview] No.13140 del
>>13139
No. You have to be a lawyer to understand it apparently. Lusers are just too dumb.

Ask yourself, however, "What did I pay for software X". If it's nothing... that is significant. You can't hold the grantor to the "bargain" ... because there is no bargain in that case. And it is not a transfer of ownership either, the author still owns the code (it's a license: permission). Put 2 and 2 together.


Anonymous 01/23/2019 (Wed) 13:13:52 [Preview] No.13141 del


Anonymous 01/23/2019 (Wed) 20:13:00 [Preview] No.13144 del
Linux users are traditionally called "lusers", what are OpenBSD users called?


Anonymous 01/23/2019 (Wed) 23:48:30 [Preview] No.13145 del
Theo, or out of resect, Mr DeRaadt


Anonymous 01/24/2019 (Thu) 18:30:03 [Preview] No.13147 del
>>13145
hahahhaahahhaha!


Anonymous 01/26/2019 (Sat) 15:27:30 [Preview] No.13148 del
(431.06 KB 349x271 feebles-puke.gif)
Fuck off, shill. I'm not sure who on the Linux Foundation board is paying you to spread these lies but it's obvious that you're pushing le rescind maymay to get the GPL rendered null in court. If GPLv2 is revocable then Google, Intel and Red Hat can immediately threaten to revoke their employees' contributions and effectively kill Linux forever unless they do whatever they want. Since people here are apparently too retarded to see beyond "lol triggered" I'll put that in big letters so it'll maybe stick:
IF GPL IS REVOCABLE INTEL AND RED HAT CAN BAN EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A STRONG LGBTQIAAPP PERXN OF COLOR FROM CONTRIBUTING AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO TO STOP THEM WITHOUT MAKING LINUX ILLEGAL
THE ENTIRE REVOCATION MEME IS A CORPORATE PLOT TO UNDERMINE CONFIDENCE IN FREE SOFTWARE AND ENSURE THAT NOBODY LICENSES ANYTHING USEFUL UNDER COPYLEFT EVER AGAIN


Anonymous 01/26/2019 (Sat) 15:32:10 [Preview] No.13149 del
>>13148
> I'm not sure who on the Linux Foundation board is paying you to spread these lies
https://www.linuxfoundation.org/membership/members/
all of them


Anonymous 01/27/2019 (Sun) 03:23:39 [Preview] No.13152 del
>>13148
Except for their paying customers, correct.

However the old hackers who wrote the original code can also revoke. Any "re-implementation" of their code is likely to be be a derivative work, more litigation ensues.

I'm not being paid by anyone.
I would rather the whole thing burn down in the USA than women rule over the men who built the thing.

Linux can continue as the HackerOS it was, in europe etc. 10 years ago no one gave a damn about the legalities. Then the women took over (just faces for the corps you dislike)

The problem is the USA (and England), and it's women who rule over the men (and banned the men from having cute young girls as brides over 100 years ago, don't cha know). The solution is the eject the USA.

Rescind.


Anonymous 01/27/2019 (Sun) 03:33:54 [Preview] No.13153 del
>IF GPL IS REVOCABLE
It is.

> INTEL AND RED HAT CAN BAN EVERYONE WHO ISN'T A STRONG LGBTQIAAPP PERXN OF COLOR FROM CONTRIBUTING AND THERE IS NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO TO STOP THEM WITHOUT MAKING LINUX ILLEGAL
And so can the old gratis hackers.

>THE ENTIRE REVOCATION MEME IS A CORPORATE PLOT
Nope

> TO UNDERMINE CONFIDENCE IN FREE SOFTWARE
Yep. Women have taken over our hobby. Using US legalities. They have designed to kick us out and punish us for our work. The solution is to destroy the "treasure" they seek to control.

>AND ENSURE THAT NOBODY LICENSES ANYTHING USEFUL UNDER COPYLEFT EVER AGAIN
Opensource and Copyleft were always gratis licenses where the taker gave and promised nothing to the grantor. They were always revocable in the USA. BSD, MIT, GPL, all the traditional ones.

It's nothing new.
What's new is YOU playing along and abiding to US LAW. That is what is new. In the 90s and 2000s not one OSS programmer gave a fuck about US civil law, and did not give a fuck about US criminal law. And had NO respect for do-nothing people.

Then they got women'd (by the corps). Now, even if they're copyright-holding gratis hackers, they're treated like employees. The do-nothing women are seen with awe and respect. All the donations to the Linux Fund or whatever they are called is given to the women. Same with the rest of the free and opensource software foundations.

The solution is to destroy the legal foundations of the thing in the USA. To hurt the women and their corps back. It can be done. (If it were just the corps it shouldn't be: but the absolute enemy who banned all men on EARTH from having what is good is there too).

Do you like living with no cute girls to marry? To be denied what YHWH allows?

Do you like to be the slave, where the anglo woman puts you? Not the ba'al that YHWH would elevate you to?

Apparently linux programmers like being the slave of absolutely worthless cunt women. Their enemy who denies them all that is good and seeks to eradicate all cultures that give what is sought to men.


Anonymous 01/27/2019 (Sun) 03:42:57 [Preview] No.13154 del
>>13148
>then Google, Intel and Red Hat can immediately threaten to revoke their employees' contributions and effectively kill Linux forever unless they do whatever they want.
When you deal with the devil...


Anonymous 01/28/2019 (Mon) 01:40:47 [Preview] No.13155 del
>>13152
>>13153
>censoring Yahweh
>intentionally associating anti-CoC and the pursuit of technical merit with RooshV tier well poisoning
You are a COINTELPRO operative and I claim my twelve talents.

Rescind your life.


Anonymous 01/29/2019 (Tue) 09:17:37 [Preview] No.13158 del
>>13155
>You are a COINTELPRO operative and I claim my twelve talents.
If I was, I'd already have my child brides, would I not, according to you.

>Rescind your life.
Another good analogy.
As one can rescind one's life, because one has full control over one's person, one can also rescind a gratis license: one has not contracted away any of one's proprietary rights.


Anonymous 01/30/2019 (Wed) 07:21:02 [Preview] No.13160 del
(3.94 MB 2127x3287 Verena_Huber-Dyson.jpg)
Mikee rescinded the license for his code from a pretty amorphous entity, which he can't even refer to consistently. He sometimes calls them the "Geek Feminism collective" or the "Geek Feminists," or various other spellings and capitalizations. As far as I can tell, that's not some entity like a non-profit organization or something that's actually identifiable. It's just a defunct blog (last post 8 months ago, and it appears there won't be any more) and an out-of-date wiki in "archival mode."

>The Geek Feminism Wiki is effectively in archival mode. New accounts are restricted from editing due to vandalism, and we do not have the volunteer labor available to whitelist new accounts and monitor activity. The content of the wiki (most of which was written between 2009 and 2012) likely reflects many undesirable biases, such as racism and ableism [kekworthy emphasis mine]

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Geek_Feminism_Wiki

https://geekfeminism.org/ (the defunct blog)

Apparently, they did host and redistribute one of Mikee's programs at one time as a joke or some kind of lame trolling attempt, but they stopped doing so in 2014: https://geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/mikeeusas-code-now-available-on-geekfeminism-org/

So, basically, a mentally ill person has told an amorphous group of mostly pseudonymous mentally ill people who used to contribute to a now-defunct blog and wiki that they can't use his code anymore, except they don't appear to have had anything to do with it for 5 years anyway. In other words,
IT'S
FUCKING
NOTHING

You might be right about this stuff about rescinding licenses, Mikee. I don't know; I'm not a lawyer. Then again, neither are you, in spite of your protests to the contrary.

Your so-called rescinding of the license to your slots program from the "Geek Feminists" is laughable, though. As far as I can tell, they're not distributing your code anymore, and they haven't for years. The way in which you think you've informed them of your rescission (sperging out on various pseudonymous and anonymous fora) is truly cringeworthy. I'd be surprised if any of them had even heard of the supposed rescission.

Even if they had heard, and even if they were still hosting it, their most likely response would be to shrug and rm -rf your code. Because they think you have a case? No, because deleting the code would be simpler than responding to a lawsuit, and because they don't actually care about your code. They were only ever hosting it as a joke, Mikee. Granted, women aren't funny, so it wasn't a good joke, but the point is that they never took it seriously. So, even if they were still hosting your code (but I don't think they are) and even if they had heard of your rescinding the license (but I don't think they have), they would likely comply, which would prove nothing but that they don't want to deal with you. That tells us nothing useful, because nobody wants to deal with you, not even most of the people here, who have a high tolerance for shenanigans.

Whatever the merits of your legal claims, almost nobody is going to take you seriously because of the way you conduct yourself. Is that fair? Perhaps not. But it's reality. The merits (or lack thereof) of your legal claims are separate from the fact that you shit up every place you go with insane rambling, spamming the same quotes and text over and over, and going off on tangents about fucking little girls. But most people--including most Linux kernel contributors who might otherwise be sympathetic to your perspective and might hate the CoC--are going to be so repulsed by you that they won't have any interest in hearing what you have to say.


Anonymous 01/30/2019 (Wed) 12:23:30 [Preview] No.13162 del
(9.32 KB 646x483 gpcs2ppppppp.png)
>>13160
Also rescinded from named persons:
( Alex "Skud" Bayley, Leigh Honeywell )
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/17/52
Who are identifiable.

Additionally, from a "John Doe", and then sent a DMCA takedown to github when "John Doe" violated the rescission.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/1/29/1251


Anonymous 01/30/2019 (Wed) 12:27:12 [Preview] No.13163 del
>You might be right about this stuff about rescinding licenses, Mikee. I don't know;
Indeed, you don't know, so shut your mouth about the merits of my legal claims you fucking piece of filth.

>I'm not a lawyer. Then again, neither are you, in spite of your protests to the contrary.
I am.

> little girls.
Those opposed to allowing men to marry cute young girls are heretics. (See Devarim (5th law book) chapter 22, verse 28 (na'ar (hebrew), padia (greek), puealla (puella))


Anonymous 01/30/2019 (Wed) 12:29:24 [Preview] No.13164 del
>>13160
>You might be right about this stuff about rescinding licenses, Mikee. I don't know;
Indeed, you don't know, so shut your mouth about the merits of my legal claims you fucking piece of filth.

>I'm not a lawyer. Then again, neither are you, in spite of your protests to the contrary.
I am.

> little girls.
Those opposed to allowing men to marry cute young girls are heretics. (See Devarim (5th law book) chapter 22, verse 28 (na'ar (hebrew), padia (greek), puella (latin))


Anonymous 01/30/2019 (Wed) 15:50:01 [Preview] No.13165 del
>>13163
Your ongoing failure to address the substance of my posts is noted.


Anonymous 01/30/2019 (Wed) 23:28:38 [Preview] No.13167 del
>>13165
Your post has no substance.

You're just an ignorant lay idiot.

I'm an attorney. I know that I can rescind the gratis bare license from whom I wish, and I have done so.

From the "Geek Feminists"
From Alex "Skud" Bayley
From Leigh Honeywell
and from a "John Doe"


Anonymous 02/02/2019 (Sat) 00:32:20 [Preview] No.13169 del
linux isnt perfect. it isnt even especially excellent. it was just good enough at a time that people were grasping for an alternative.

all of this speak about the gpl this and rescinded code that doesnt make a lick of difference because something else will come along that is good enough (not even great), that, even in the case of rescinded linux code, will fill the void.

let the baby have its bottle


Anonymous 02/02/2019 (Sat) 00:33:23 [Preview] No.13170 del
i dont much care for the opinions espoused in this and similar threads im only posting to say this: get on with it already!


Anonymous 02/02/2019 (Sat) 00:39:16 [Preview] No.13171 del
maybe its me but im sick of the circular nature of it and the egging on of opposing sides.

well if you let in the blue hairs ill rescind code
well if you rescind code ill sue
well if you sue ill be fine because legality is not a marker for morality and never was.

get on with it already.


Anonymous 02/02/2019 (Sat) 22:34:36 [Preview] No.13172 del
Host agrees to DMCA takedown of GPL'd work after Author rescinds license from "John Doe". Yes you CAN rescind the GPL.

https://gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/DMCA%20Takedown%20Notice.txt


Anonymous 02/02/2019 (Sat) 22:35:59 [Preview] No.13173 del
>>13171
I sent the DMCA requests.

>all of this speak about the gpl this and rescinded code that doesnt make a lick of difference because something else will come along that is good enough (not even great), that, even in the case of rescinded linux code, will fill the void.

The BSD's already exist.


Anonymous 02/03/2019 (Sun) 03:36:30 [Preview] No.13175 del
> Jacobsen v. Katzer.

Appelate court ruled that the Artistic License was a Copyright License, _Overuled_ the lowercourt's opinion that the only damages available for the AL were contract damages. Now licensor can get copyright damages instead.

How does this hurt me, DIPSHIT? Oh, are you relying on the non-binding DICTA earlier in the case? SHOWS WHAT A FUCKING RETARD YOU ARE.

The ruling helps me. The court decided that the AL was a copyright license, overruling the "we have a contract here" ruling of the lower court. If the court found it was a contract then only contract damages would be awarded, as is their practice.

Artifex case involves a preliminary offer to do business where the company allows two means of acceptance of the offer: Pay for the commercial license, accept the GPL.

Not the GPL standing alone.

Both of these cases are cases where a licensee violates the license, and the court allows the licensor to recover.

Completely unrelated to a situation where the licensor revokes a completely gratis license and you FUCKING pieces of shit feel that you can punish the licensor for doing so.

> that taught you that licenses require consideration to be irrevocable.
It's very basic law of licenses, you fucking moron.
Your only other option is to beg the court under equity not to enforce the owner's legal right. Which, is the SFLC's game plan.

The GPL itself is NOT a contract.

>If you really are an attorney, I want to know who did your character and fitness interview. Man, did that guy fuck up.

Tell me how so, dipshit. It's you who seem to be unaware that licenses are revocable, that obeying a pre-existing legal duty is insufficient for consideration, that a non-exclusive license is NEVER a transfer of rights.

You just assume that because commercial copyright licenses are irrevocable outside of their terms that gratis ones are too. Same mistake PJ the paralegal made.

>But no, you need to keep trying to convince attorneys that licenses are irrevocable

Nope, informing the lay people that gratis licenses /are/ revocable.

>and little girls are capable of consent

YHWH doesn't require consent. See Devarim chapter 22, verse 28 (key words: taphas, na'ar (hebrew), padia (greek Septuagint), puella (latin vulgate)). I know it conflicts with your western religion, but hopefully the muslims will completely destroy and dismantle it so there is no record left of your western religion ever existing on this earth.

>and adult women can't be allowed near software.

The adult women infiltrate gratis projects, then rule over the men who actually built the project from the ground up. They are entryists and ENEMIES. They do this to every single hobby men build into a science or engineering field. I can't really say all women though, WHITE women.

>I've got friends at the SFC

Does that include that baby-faced faggot B.Kuhn who isn't even a lawyer and then suddenly learned one year that, if he was going to run a legal consulting firm, he'd better hire a lawyer instead of playing one... and then learned that a lawyer cannot be below lay persons in such a firm, so he made the woman the head of the place and pretends it was all for women's empowerment, thinking that no one knows the bar rules and can see through his bullshit? Is that the Software Freedom Conservancy's who's "clarification" I debunked within 5 hours of them posting? The one that ignores section 0 of the GPLv2 which defines "you" as the licensees (not the grantor) and falsely attempts to convince readers that section 4 is a "no revocation" clause when it is simply a clarification that if an upstream licensee loses his license through automatic rescission, the downstream licensees do not automatically suffer the same fate. That SFC? The one that "advises" its clients to "wait it out" so they can lose their standing via the statute of limitations running (Great advice B.Kuhn).

Yea, a bunch of fucking retards who basically commit legal malpractice against their clients as a "career". But you get what you pay for (


Anonymous 02/04/2019 (Mon) 16:15:03 [Preview] No.13177 del
"GPL is revocable" == terrorism according to pro-women's rights anti-marry-young-girls heretics:
https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/am6xhj/host_agrees_to_dmca_takedown_of_gpld_work_after/

comphacker
2 points ·
21 hours ago

Alright, you know what? I'm tired of this shit spewing from you every waking hour of the day. Yes I am. So here's my response to your post:

"GPL is revocable" == terrorism. You learn something new every day.

1.) Terrorism is the use of terror to cause mass panic or fear. You're not a terrorist, but you are insane and by the looks of it, too far gone to try to get back. 2.) I think your far-negative comment karma and every commenter in your posts now agree that at this point, nobody even cares about whatever your original goal was. You've posted on dozens of subreddits the exact same fucking thing:


Anonymous 02/06/2019 (Wed) 01:29:16 [Preview] No.13178 del
https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/an60kd/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/an666y/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/4/1065
https://www.reddit.com/r/redhat/comments/andmlq/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/linuxmint/comments/andpdw/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/IBM/comments/andsbg/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/COPYRIGHT/comments/andx9k/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Gentoo/comments/ane10j/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux_gaming/comments/ane4ye/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/ane7wp/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/archlinux/comments/aneavo/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/unix/comments/anegyy/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/devops/comments/anek40/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/freesoftware/comments/anepd5/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/kernel/comments/aneu6q/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/anf04l/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://www.reddit.com/r/CentOS/comments/anf5t0/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/
https://slashdot.org/submission/9191318/i-have-rescinded-the-gpl-from-a-number-of-people-regarding-gpc-slots-2
https://www.reddit.com/r/slashdot/comments/anfb03/i_have_rescinded_the_gpl_from_a_number_of_people/

Topic:
I have rescinded the GPL from a number of people (regarding GPC-Slots 2)

Hi, I noticed that there was some noise recently about some decisions I have made regarding my GPC-Slots 2 game.

I had chosen, as was my want, to rescind the license I extended from a few choice individuals. I can do this because GPC-Slots 2 is my copyrighted work. I built it. I never transferred the copyright over to anyone.

The individuals are:
"JohnDoe" from 8chan (he knows who he is)
comphacker from here, reddit (if he violates, I'll know who he is after the subpoenas during discovery)
Leigh Honeywell
Alex "Skud" Bayley
the "Geek feminist" collective (I believe they are identifiable, and a small group, so no harm using this closed-class identification)

I will continue to rescind the license from anyone who adds a "Code of Conduct" anywhere near my code (to "fight sexism".). I wholeheartedly /support/ sexism, as-long as it is not against men. Since men are now being assaulted as thanks for their ceaseless decades-long work on opensource by people who did not put in the time, men should /support sexism/ by revoking license to their gratis licensed copyrighted code from any project that adds a "Code of Conduct".

--MikeeUSA--
(electronic signature)

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Some notes:
A license without an attached interest is revocable in the US (other countries have different laws, which is why many OSS repos kept out of the US in the past, it is also why the FSF is both a 501(c)(3) charity and also requires copyright assignment to them for any contribution they accept (otherwise an author who was still the copyright owner of the code could rescind the license to the code)).

Opensource friends like to bring up the recent district court decision in california to try to argue the the GPL is a contract. (It's also interesting that they started adding CoC's right after said decision, to push out the men who created OpenSource) They are wrong. Acquiescing to a preexisting duty is insufficient for consideration. They like to quote this part:

>"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint,provides that t


Anonymous 02/06/2019 (Wed) 01:31:09 [Preview] No.13179 del
(93.45 KB 800x450 anime1529392116349.jpg)
The DMCA requests to bitbucket and gitlab were successful so far.

Github has ignored the DMCA requests so far.


Anonymous 02/06/2019 (Wed) 17:44:38 [Preview] No.13180 del
>>13179
Thumbs up!


Anonymous 02/07/2019 (Thu) 06:29:50 [Preview] No.13181 del
>>13179
until microsoft realizes they bought github at least


Anonymous 02/08/2019 (Fri) 04:15:23 [Preview] No.13182 del
>>13181
Someone should remind them.. their holdings are so vast, they can't keep track.

4chan decided to have a thread: https://warosu.org/g/thread/S69683493

Thanks to whomever posted it.


Anonymous 02/11/2019 (Mon) 23:17:00 [Preview] No.13185 del
From github:
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


Anonymous 02/11/2019 (Mon) 23:20:06 [Preview] No.13186 del
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/2/11/2167

Subject Re: DMCA takedown notice


You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.

I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.

I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.

The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law
as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a
person with the intent to sign the record."

My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important
is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.

I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that
you may know that I am me:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download

(I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)

In addition to many other places.
Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally
inefficacious.

I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.

--MikeeUSA--
(Author of GPC-Slots 2)
(electronic signature)

On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
>
> Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> for reference.
>


Anonymous 02/13/2019 (Wed) 19:03:06 [Preview] No.13192 del
so is something wrong with the gpl or what?


Anonymous 02/20/2019 (Wed) 12:10:52 [Preview] No.13209 del
>>13192
>so is something wrong with the gpl or what?

If you have been told that the author will not revoke the license, but you have not paid him for that "promise", it is an illusory promise and not enforceable.

Effectively: the GPL is an illusory promise, from the perspective of the user.


Anonymous 03/06/2019 (Wed) 02:17:54 [Preview] No.13214 del
On 2019-02-20 20:10, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
>
> Unfortunately, a pen name does not suffice when used in combination
> with a disposable email address. Whether under the definition in 15
> U.S.C 7006(5) which you cited, or as used in the DMCA, an electronic
> signature needs to be associated with a person, as that term is
> defined by 15 U.S.C. 7006(8). A psuedonym, without other information
> that would allow us to associate that with a specific, identifiable
> person, does not meet 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i)'s requirement that it be
> signed by an authorized person. As a practical matter, this is
> especially necessary where, as you claim, an account that may not be
> you is posting content using that same pseudonym.
>
> Even if that were not so, your notice would still be incomplete in two
> other ways.
>
> First, it lacks "information reasonably sufficient to permit the
> service provider to contact the complaining party," as you've used a
> disposable email address and provided no other contact information
> that would be sufficient to assure we can contact the complaining
> party. This type of reliable contact information is required by 17
> U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(iv).
>
> Second, your notice does not appear to identify material which
> infringes on any exclusive rights in the original work. Both your
> source code and the repositories you identified are published under
> GPL licenses. You have not identified any way in which those
> repositories violate the GPL, and without more detail we cannot
> determine how redistributing or modifying GPL-licensed code would
> constitute infringing activity. While GitHub is not in a position to
> provide you with legal advice, here is an informative link about the
> irrevocability of GPL licenses:
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
>
> 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
> will process it expeditiously.
>
> Thanks,
>
> GitHub Staff


Anonymous 03/06/2019 (Wed) 02:20:45 [Preview] No.13215 del
( https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/5/713 )
Re: DMCA takedown notice

My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
request.

This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.

Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control
the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation
and distribution of derivatives of the work.

I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe subsequently,
and with notice of the revocation.

A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the
United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays
the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an attached
interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest
with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is illusory.

Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing
legal duty is not valid consideration.

The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US Jurisprudence.

In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract (and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the lower court in the 9th circuit:
>"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not obtain a commercial license."

This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to agree to any of it's terms.

I invite you to consult this learned treatise:
(1) https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)
(2) http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249130

All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.

I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.
Signed;
--MikeeUSA--


Anonymous 03/12/2019 (Tue) 03:20:59 [Preview] No.13220 del
>>13214
GitHub: Pic related
>>13215
Mikee: REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

loling @ u, faggot
can't wait for you to dox yourself with a lawsuit! you won't
bye, felicia!


Anonymous 03/16/2019 (Sat) 03:26:36 [Preview] No.13223 del
Some replies:

Re: DMCA takedown notice
From [email protected]
Date 2019-03-06 04:08


Message Body
I am not a member of github staff, nor am I party to any Draconian takedown request that I know of. And further, I intend to defy you on federal principle whilst laughing most heartily in your face.

In conclusion, get the hell out of my email inbox, you fucking knob.

--------------------------------
Re: DMCA takedown notice
From Martin Schroeder
Date 2019-03-06 04:48


Message Body
The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a
court.

Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

--------------------------------
Re: DMCA takedown notice
From swack
Date 2019-03-06 05:06

It COULD work as an essay. I don't know if you would want to or if you could stick to this format, but here is my idea:

Title: "You CAN revoke GPL -- here's how I just did it"
Structure: A concise chronological story starting from the beginning (mentioning the initial controversy/our first story), moving through your efforts and communications, ending with the successes, and finally some thoughts about it.

You can't overwhelm people with mountains of random unattributed text and legal arguments they don't understand (must be explained in layman's terms) or they won't read it.

Let me know what you think.
--------------------------------


Anonymous 03/16/2019 (Sat) 03:28:50 [Preview] No.13224 del
Subject: Re: DMCA takedown notice
From GitHub Staff
To [email protected]
Date 2019-03-07 02:30

Hi MikeeUSA,

I've done my best to address your concerns below. Until you provide a complete DMCA takedown notice, we are unable to act on your request.

> My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
> along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
> to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
> request.


As explained in our previous email, that is not the standard required by 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i).

> I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.


Based on the information you've provided, we are unable to determine that any valid license revocation has taken place here.

> A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable ...
> An interest attaches when a licensee pays
> the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
> bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such anattached
> interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.


Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of valuable consideration. Moreover, you have not addressed other doctrines, such as reliance or promissory estoppel, which would prevent revocation even in the absence of valuable consideration.

> The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US
> Jurisprudence.


While they are in easily-missed footnotes, the linked article contains citations to three cases which support their respective underlying legal theories. Please note the article is provided for informational purposes, and GitHub is unable to give legal advice about open-source licensing or copyright questions.

If you would like to revise 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 DMCA notice, we will process it expeditiously.

Thanks,

GitHub Staff


Anonymous 03/16/2019 (Sat) 03:30:40 [Preview] No.13225 del
> > Re: DMCA takedown notice
> > To GitHub Staff
> > Date Mar 15, 2019



I am going to sue your staff for contributory copyright infringement in their personal capacity, in addition to you company.
I have given you ample notice to remove the work.

> Moreover, you have not addressed other doctrines, such as reliance or promissory estoppel, which would prevent revocation even in the absence of valuable consideration.

These are equitable defenses. Not defenses-at-law. They are determined on a case by case basis. Promissory estoppel is most often "awarded" when a defendant has, on the reliance of explicit promises to him by the owner, laid out monies to purchase improvements for the affected property.

An example is when one builds extra buildings on a piece of land one was promised ownership on upon the owners death. It is much related to the old Livery of Seisin which was used in the conveyance of land and is, in fact, a modern substitute for it.

There is little relevance between such and a licensee, one of many, who, for no outlay, had permission to use a piece of software. Permission which was later revoked.

> Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to
> locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL
> licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of
> valuable consideration.

The John Doe would have to prove that there was a contract, it is not me, the copyright holder, who's duty it is to show that there was none.
One cannot prove a negative. You know this very well.
It is the consideration (payment) that would create a contract which a licensee could attempt to rely upon.
Where there is no such consideration there is no contract.

Here the John Doe admitted that he simply downloaded the work and also admitted that there was no contract between him and I
"Thank God", he added.

This is attested to in the original complaint, the John Doe is quoted, and his testimony is linked.
However it is not my duty to prove to you that there is _not_ any consideration.

That is proving a negative. It is a duty of the John Doe's defense to prove that there is such a payment, which there is not.
I was never paid by the John Doe.

You are being completely disingenuous here. You think you are clever, but you will be sorry once my legal bill is being paid out of your personal expenses for your blatant copyright infringement of my work. The courts won't think you're "cute" or "clever".

I have addressed your claim that my signature was invalid. Your understanding of what is required of a signature and the purpose of a signature is incorrect. A signature simply shows assent of the party to the validity of the document. An X is sufficient. Here I have chosen to use my long-held pen name, MikeeUSA. I have also published these notices at the place of the publication of the work, to give further confirmation.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

Forewarned is forearmed.

Sincerely,
Signed,
--MikeeUSA--


On 2019-03-07 02:30, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
...
> GitHub Staff


Anonymous 03/16/2019 (Sat) 11:37:03 [Preview] No.13226 del
Sometimes overwhelming clarity and conviction about things and the ability to focus sharper and longer than most is an asset that I wouldn't give up for anything. Sometimes nobody cares and I can't make them care no matter what I say or do and that same conviction is a curse because it ultimately wastes my time and damages opportunities and my relationships with others.


Anonymous 03/16/2019 (Sat) 16:32:06 [Preview] No.13227 del
making them care or convincing them is unimportant, important is to defend oneself against them

relationships with a bunch of wussies and marxists are worth naught



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply