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Reportedly, the author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.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



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply