/tech/ - Technology

Where proprietary software comes to die

Posting mode: Reply

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


GRsecurity is preventing others from redistributing source code Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 18:53:50 [Preview] No. 4339
GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute (by threatening them with a non-renewal of a contract to recive this patch to the linux kernel.)
(GRsecurity is a derivative work of the linux kernel (it is a patch))

People who have dealt with them have attested to this fact:
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4grdtb/censorship_linux_developer_steals_page_from_randi/
"You will also lose the access to the patches in the form of grsec not renewing the contract.
Also they've asked us (a Russian hosting company) for $17000+ a year for access their stable patches. $17k is quite a lot for us. A question about negotiating a lower price was completely ignored. Twice." -- fbt2lurker

And it is suggested to be the case here aswell:
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4gxdlh/after_15_years_of_research_grsecuritys_rap_is_here/
"Do you work for some company that pays for Grsecurity? If so then would you kindly excersise the rights given to you by GPL and send me a tarball of all the latest patches and releases?" -- lolidaisuki
"sadly (for this case) no, i work in a human rights organization where we get the patches by a friendly and richer 3rd party of the same field. we made the compromise to that 3rd party to not distribute the patches outside and as we deal with some critical situations i cannot afford to compromise that even for the sake of gpl :/
the "dumber" version for unstable patches will make a big problem for several projects, i would keep an eye on them. this situation cannot be hold for a long time" -- disturbio



Is this not tortious interference, on grsecurity's (Brad Spengler) part, with the quazi-contractual relationship the sublicensee has with the original licensor?



(Also Note: the stable branch now contains features that will never make it to the "testing" branch, and are not allowed to be redistributed, per the scheme mentioned above (which has been successful: not one version of the stable branch has been released by anyone, even those asked to do so, since the scheme has been put in place (they say they cannot as they cannot lose access to the patch as that may cost the lives and freedom of activists in latin america)))
https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/726101158561882112
@xoreipeip @grsecurity they call it a "demo" version "20:14 < spender> what's in the public version is < 1/5th the size of the full version"
oreipeip @grsecurity "20:21 < spender> also it wouldn't be as fast as the commercial version [...] there are missing optimization passes"


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 19:39:14 [Preview] No. 4340 del
Interesting, development. But OP, where are you copying this from? What's up with that propagandist logo? In other words, who are you amplifying/shilling for?


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 20:18:11 [Preview] No. 4342 del
This seems to actually be at least partially true: https://grsecurity.net/business_support.php
>All commercial support contracts come with access to our stable patch series, unavailable to the general public.
This does not say, however, that the stable patches are licensed under GPL. Where did you infer that from >>4339?


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 21:15:13 [Preview] No. 4344 del
(6.41 MB 640x360 1464591150393.webm)
>>4342

Their argument is usually that, as a patch to a GPLv2 work (the Linux kernel), the patch (stable or otherwise) is a "derived work" under the GPL and is therefore also licensed under the GPL.

Personally, I don't think that a patch distributed alone is a derivative work. I don't think this has been tested in court, though.


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 23:27:03 [Preview] No. 4346 del
>Personally, I don't think that a patch distributed alone is a derivative work. I don't think this has been tested in court, though.

Got a law degree? Passed the bar?

I do and I have.

A patch is a derivative work.
Go read a casebook on copyright you fucking retard.

Even you sketching over a photograph of Dorthy from wizard of OZ is a derivative work you fucking mongoloid.


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 23:28:45 [Preview] No. 4347 del
>>4340
Interesting, development. But OP, where are you copying this from?

No one, I wrote this post

> What's up with that propagandist logo?
I felt the red was more eye-caching then boring blue and grey.

>In other words, who are you amplifying/shilling for?
No one but myself.


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 23:46:53 [Preview] No. 4348 del
It's GPL, they are at liberty to do so. Now if it was CC BY-SA 3.0 US, or agpl, then maybe clients have a case.


Anonymous 05/31/2016 (Tue) 23:50:16 [Preview] No. 4349 del
>>4346
> I do and I have
Picture please. I wholesomely believe the derivative work thing, except your bar cert.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 00:41:32 [Preview] No. 4350 del
Over at endchan they are now arguing that a patch to the linux kernel, which cannot exist without the linux kernel, is not a derivative work!

> http://endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html


>Their argument is usually that, as a patch to a GPLv2 work (the Linux kernel), the patch (stable or otherwise) is a "derived work" under the GPL and is therefore also licensed under the GPL.
>Personally, I don't think that a patch distributed alone is a derivative work. I don't think this has been tested in court, though.

Now why does this fucking piece of SHIT think that what he (or she, but I think it's just some faggot "male") PERSONALLY believes matters?

What the FUCK is up with all the retarded self-important techies? You haven't read a PAGE of even one casebook, and suddenly what you PERSONALLY think in your uneducated mind has some merit?

No, it does not. There is a reason lawschool takes 3 years just for the BASICS. There is a reason you must then pass the Bar exam.

No, you fucking thinking it through in your know-nothing-about-the law brain has ZERO relevance and ZERO merit.

>Deeerrrr uhhh patttchh is noot a derivativer wurrk i dont dink!!!!

Scribbling on a picture of Dorthy is a derivative work.
Painting a likeness, fully from your own conciousness, of micky mouse is a derivative work.

But a patch that was made by taking the linux code and then adding lines of code here and there, all intermingled, all dependant upon the whole... now that, now that is SOMEHOW "not" a derivative work this fucking TECHIE says.


Guess what guys, The GPL is moot! Hacking on someone ELSE's code does not create a derivative work! All copyright caselaw is moot too!

Yep Yep


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 00:42:17 [Preview] No. 4351 del
>>54842745
>>54842791
>>54842820

There is a legal term for this. It's called acting in bad faith.
That often gets your contract nullified.
Here there is a license grant. Spengler is acting in bad faith to frustrate its purpose.
It does not matter if he is breaking legs, threatening to expose secrets, or threatining to raise prices to exorbidant rates, or to cease sending the patches:
What matters is that his goal is to deny the sublicensee the right given to the sublicensee by the original licensor, and that he has obtained that goal via his actions (the threats here).

He has frustrated the purpose of the agreement (the grant) he had with the original licensor, and thus
the grant fails. In other words: he has violated the license.

It's very simple, I don't know why some here do not understand it, it's like you never graduated law school nor passed the bar.

The courts are not dumb, they've seen people try to be "clever" like this before for well over 100 years.
Just because some here have never heard of any of it doesn't mean what they then grind together their uneducated brain is correct (even though they will swear to high heaven it is, cuz it makes sence to them, centuries of caselaw and even black letter law be damned).


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 00:43:45 [Preview] No. 4352 del
>> 4348
>It's GPL, they are at liberty to do so. Now if it was CC BY-SA 3.0 US, or agpl, then maybe clients have a case.

No they are not at liberty to do this. Listen carefully.

>>54842691

>Are they not redistributing the source?
Correct
> Are they forbidding others from redistributing the source?
Correct.

> Seems to me they're saying "if you redistribute the source, we won't do business with you again/charge you a lot for a renewal".
>How is this illegal?
Hmm so there is Licensor (Linux Devs), they place their copyrighted work out there, under conditions.

There is Licensee (Brad Spengler, Grsecurity), he takes the copyrighted work under the terms and conditions and creates a derivative work (not allowed under pure copyright, only permissible as per the will of the rightsholder, as stated in the agreement)

The license states that, for permission to create a derivative work, one must allow others who gain access to that derivative work to redistribute said work, modify it, so on and so forth (otherwise there is no permission under the agreement).

Licensee creates derivative work.

Licensee sublicenses derivative work to sublicensee. Licensee stipulates that sublicensee may not redistribute derivative work. Licensee makes threats to ensure compliance with this demand that sublicensee not distribute derivative work. These demands are met: sublicensee dares not redistribute the work.

The conditions the Licensor placed on his work have been spurned, ignored, and abolished by the actions of the licensee.

Licensee has frustrated the purpose of the grant he has been give by licensor. It does not matter specifically how he went about doing so. He did so.

>You can argue that they're assholes, but this isn't illegal.

So in other words you are saying "you can argue that Brad Spengler has treated the agreement in... bad faith". Thank you for restating a portion of my case, in inadvertently

"But JUDGE, bad faith, when it comes to business dealings, contracts, grants, and the like is fine and good!"

>bla bla

So have you attended law school and passed the bar?

I have.


There is a case.
Anyone who has taken 1 semester of torts and then casually leafed through a casebook on copyrights knows this.

You don't know this, that doesn't mean what you think is the law is: you are not trained even one day in the law. You are of the peanut gallery and should pipe down and keep your hands off the keyboard.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 00:45:19 [Preview] No. 4353 del
>> 4349
>Picture please. I wholesomely believe the derivative work thing, except your bar cert.

Not going to dox myself to prove something to faggots on the net who don't know their first thing about the law but imagine that since they read the GPL they are the end-all-be-all of knowledge on the subject of copyright, torts, so on and so forth.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 01:06:00 [Preview] No. 4359 del
>>4353

No, no, this retard likely didn't even read the license he's now opining about.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 01:14:58 [Preview] No. 4360 del
>>4359

FUCK YOU.

Tell me how I'm a retard.

Here's how I KNOW you are a retard: ALL your arguments touch ONLY on the license.

You make NO mention of the law.


FUCK YOU.

You only know the license.

I know the license AND the law.

But you do NOT know what you do NOT KNOW YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 01:15:41 [Preview] No. 4361 del
>> 4359
So have you attended law school and passed the bar?

I have.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 04:11:53 [Preview] No. 4366 del
>>54844263
>Which was not broken since the sub-licensee still has all the privileges and obligations given to them by the GPL.

Incorrect in practice: the sublicensees have been effectively prevented from exercising the right given to them by the original licensor (linux devs) by the action of the intimediary (grsecurity). In this case, since spengler is working to frustrate the purpose of the grant given by the original licensor the court may very well nullify his right to seek cover of the license: IE: he has acted in bad faith in attempting (successfully here) to DENY a permission granted to the sublicensee by the original licensor and thus has violated the license and can be sued by the original licensor for copyright infringement. (Not to mention the sublicensee for tort violations). Spengler has interfered with the relationship between the licensor (the rightsholder) and the sublicensee (likely a quazi-contractual relationship).

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Please, go to law school or keep you mouth shut.

And other people here, why is it that you choose to believe people who have not been to law school and who have not passed the bar, over me, who has done both?

Why?

They read ONE document, the agreement.
I've read books.

Yet you decide that THEY know what they are talking about? That the written grant exists in a vacume.

It's ONE FUCKING PAGE.
That's a completely integrated, four corners, covers all cases document to you people?

Do you even know what I just said?


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 07:52:07 [Preview] No. 4373 del
>>4353
>Not going to dox myself
This nigga. You are losing credibility points instantly if you know not how to censor identifying remarks of certificates. I can firmly ignore your claim of having passed a bar exam then. The other thing is true regardless if we discuss it or not.
>>4361
Same as >>4349


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 08:53:02 [Preview] No. 4377 del
>>4346

>Got a law degree? Passed the bar?

Yes to both.

>Go read a casebook on copyright you fucking retard.

That's the same tiresome response you'd regurgitate on 8chan when these threads came up. You never have an argument. Just your unproven assertion that you're a lawyer, a bunch of childish insults, and the direction to go read "a casebook" on copyright law.

>Even you sketching over a photograph of Dorthy from wizard of OZ is a derivative work you fucking mongoloid.

If that's the best analogy you can come up with, there's no way you actually went to law school and graduated.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 12:12:12 [Preview] No. 4385 del
Ok, there's some confusion going on here. Let me clarify for all of you.

Complete retard:
>>4342
>>4344
>>4348
>>4360 (or at least very confused)

Reasonably non-retarded:
>>4346
>>4350
>>4359
>>4352

Etc.

Of course is a derivative work, and of course grsec customers are in their right to further distribute the source code.

The only thing I personally cannot judge is whether grsec is doing something unlawful by denying contract extensions to those that decide to exercise their GPL-granted rights and distribute the source.

The reasonably non-retarded guy here >>4366 says that yes, it is unlawful. I'm not a lawyer and do not yet know enough to judge. What I can plainly see is that grsec is not directly infringing the GPL, they're distributing the complete corresponding source to their customers. But they certainly are trying to deter them from actually exercising their GPL-granted rights. So this may well be considered unlawful.

Hope that clears things up for you. You're welcome.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 13:00:11 [Preview] No. 4390 del
>>4377
>If that's the best analogy you can come up with, there's no way you actually went to law school and graduated.

A situation similar to the first example in the casebook that anyone who has studied copyright law at all has read == "there's no way you actually went to law school and graduated"


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 13:01:08 [Preview] No. 4391 del
>>4390
(on derivative works)


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 13:06:26 [Preview] No. 4393 del
>>4385
>Of course is a derivative work, and of course grsec customers are in their right to further distribute the source code.

Not according to >>4377 who claims to also have a law degree and passed the bar.

Nope, you can hack on any code base, make a patch, and it's an original non-derivative work! GPL is dead (so claims the cited)!

I cited an example using Dorthy as that is the first case cited in popular copyright casebooks under the section on derivative works. If one creates a painting of Dorthy from the wizard of Oz, that is indeed a derivative work. Anyone who has read the casebook knows this. So if you take a picture of Dorthy and scribble all over it and use it to make an outline sketch (which is similar to what you are doing when you are adding code here and there to an allready existant code-base).. that is obviously definitely a derivative work.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 13:08:06 [Preview] No. 4394 del
https://sys.8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html
>>605494
>And, to reiterate, you're basically arguing that if I create a derivative of the Linux kernel on my computer, and I share the patches with others, but not you, I'm legally obligated to share the tree with you.

You are not permitted to erect barriers in the way of sublicencees making use of their right to redistribute, a right that is granted by the original rights-holder. That is called bad faith on your part and your rights to the copyrighted work are dissolved since you have acted in bad faith towards the agreement you have with the original rightsholder (who has stipulated that sublicensees may redistribute at will: a purpose you are attempting (and succeding at) frustrating). It does not matter what form these barriers take.

The original licensor has a claim against you, then, for copyright infringement. The sublicensees have tort claims such as tortious interference (with their quazi-contactual business relationship with the original licensor). The original licensor has the same such tort claim.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 14:39:24 [Preview] No. 4406 del
Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 14:57:21 [Preview] No. 4408 del
>>4406

ALL HAIL SAINT RICHARD INSTALLMAN IGNUCIUS GENTOONICUS


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 18:48:32 [Preview] No. 4439 del
>> 4408

Indeed, I notice the fucking pieces of shit who were spouting off "u dont have no law degree, u didn't pass bar, it's all lies" have kept their mouth shut now.


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 18:58:25 [Preview] No. 4442 del
Got nothing to say you fucking anti-marry-girl-children pro-women's rights PIECES OF SHIT, once RMS weighed in?

Nothing?

:) FUCK YOU


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 19:14:16 [Preview] No. 4446 del
Anyone can do a TL;DR? I don't want to read all this uninteresting shit. Like, why I would like to know all the details of it? Just learn to write for internet. It must be objective as much as possible and try to ordenate in bullet points. That's how it works:
http://web.archive.org/web/20160601191351/https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-users-read-on-the-web/


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 21:10:32 [Preview] No. 4457 del
>>4446

We're not going to make a made-for-tv movie for you, dipshit.

There are 2 things you need to read:

>>4339

And

>>4406

Too hard to read? Are you a black boy in a black school?


Anonymous 06/01/2016 (Wed) 21:26:06 [Preview] No. 4458 del
>>4457
So you call me 'dipshit' because I don't want to read all your bullshit? Eh.
Just write simpler man, there's no need to be all this complicated. Today on internet we read lots of things, do you think everyone will just stop for 5 minutes and read all the things you post? No.
That's the way it works.
I don't want attention from anyone, I asked a simple question. You can just say "no", and be done with it. I'll not mind it at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English
http://www.readabilityformulas.com/new-dale-chall-readability-formula.php

If you are in end/tech/ you probably agree with minimalism in code, don't you? Just think of english as code. You're literally programming peoples brains through your writting.


kek Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 01:42:24 [Preview] No. 4469 del
>>4442
>Pro GPL
>Not Feminist
GPL is communism Feminism is communism so GPL lovers are communists. Fuck off commie.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 01:47:51 [Preview] No. 4470 del
>>4469
You fucked that up silly boy. Communism = GPL, Communism = Feminism, GPL = Feminism.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 01:48:28 [Preview] No. 4471 del
>>4469
For you everything is so simple, black&white, huh?

I wish i had such oversimplified black&white view of the world. Everything would be much easier.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 01:51:09 [Preview] No. 4472 del
>>4471
poor in spirit is not necessatively poor in wealth.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 06:15:29 [Preview] No. 4475 del
(105.71 KB 600x800 gham0fB.jpg)
>>4439
>>4442

You know, Mikee, some of us work. We don't collect disability checks for mental illness and fap to CP all day, so we don't have the free time that you do.

Also, Stallman's opinion is irrelevant, by your own standards. He might have created the GNU licenses, but he has not graduated from law school or passed the bar.

And I don't know about other anons, but I get tired of scrolling past blocks of your autistic screaming. It's all the same repetitive shit. You ritualistically invoke the "graduated law school and passed the bar" appeal to authority, which is comical on an anonymous imageboard, followed by a stream of uncreative namecalling, and finally, your admonishment to read books of case law on copyright. Again, you never seem to be able to name or cite these books, probably because if you ever actually owned them, you hocked them long ago to pay for your meds for Tourette's or whatever is plaguing your brain.

And, inevitably, you can't keep yourself from sperging out about your "marry little girls" thing.

I'm not sure what you're expecting people to post. There's no way to have a discussion, because you don't discuss, you sperg. There's no way to have a debate, because you have no argument.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 06:23:06 [Preview] No. 4476 del
>"marry little kids"
There's a thread here >>>/operate/1938 and here >>>/pol/12985


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 12:38:10 [Preview] No. 4484 del
>>4472
Of course not.

The point i was trying to make is that you can't just group ideas together and put them into boxes like that. There are not only two boxes, two sides that you can precisely divide things into and draw a thick line between them.

You can't just put equal sign between such completely different ideas, just because "hurr durr muh republican party doesn't like all those things, which means all those ideas are somehow the same thing in their core".

Only a simpleton can see the world this way. That's why USA is the country with highest percentage of simpletons in the world, because people are taught from the day the are born that there are only two sides to political spectrum and only two boxes you can put all ideas into. Which is false.

The world is complex place and people's ideas are too. Most ideologies are combinations of many different unrelated ideas and all of them also change their meaning overtime. Ideas are more like a net, than two piles with thick border between them.

But like i said: Simpletons have easier life, because they can always divide things on those they like and those they don't like and just group those ideas they don't like together and call them "leftist" or whatever word they use to call ideas they don't like.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 14:54:34 [Preview] No. 4485 del
>>4439
Yo mikee, your butt frustration has a unique tone so I assume this is really you.

Why don't you update us on chaos any more? There is an /lv here too.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 16:00:05 [Preview] No. 4489 del
>>4484
Trying to make an argument like that by a false example makes it look like you're making a cop out with a different argument altogether in your new reply that has nothing to do with quoting a small section of the beautitudes as an failed attempt to an appeal to authority as your new argument after some time had passed, to try to find a way to salvage your argument.

I would say it's hypocritical to mock amerifats while being ignorant of there technically being multiple political parties and not addressing that such exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States

I would say it's pathetic for most Europeans to casually ignore their forced open immigration problem that's worse than America's, which is to also ignore the reality that Communists literally run some parts of Europa, some of which are actually Jews as well.

I would say it's a pity that the EU destroys the economy of their nations that usurps the sovereignty of nations while the US NATO gets to do whatever it likes to prevent European countries from joining the BRICS and cut off their ties to the EU at the very least.

I would say it's sad that Europe is the second most divided land mass next to Africa (If you're going with the whole five continents division).

I would say it's a shame to not realize how one can cherrypick generalizations to make a group of people look bad while ignoring the reality that both America and Europe is a bunch of idiots being destroyed by the same fundamental enemy, yet insisting that differences makes one superior over another. You can't argue against simplistic arguments in one hand yet appeal to simplistic controlled media generalizations of America that you don't know yourself how complex politics is here. You don't know how there were multiple candidates within the false dualistic paradigm with different approaches that isn't bound to the political party that they're in. It's not easy to be a president of a multicultural, multiethnic, Jew controlled nation with various forms of internal struggles.

The quickest way to have an argument among tech people is the license wars, which is a legitimate diversion tactic to stunt productivity for matters of philosophical morals. This thread's topic is ideal to pick an extreme side of a spectrum, and although the technical, legal reality dealing with GRsecurity is very real and it is against them in their favor, it's really hard to monopolize on anything libre. It's not just the old muh games argument, rather, how there's an inherent business model being pushed in every different license and for most people, they can't rely on donations, they need to do crowd sourcing or other paywall related stuff to actually make a reasonable living from their work. Not everybody can afford to do it for free. GRsecurity's destruction is their own fault, but there is no viable solution at hand that can be utilize to fulfil the needs of everyone.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 22:07:59 [Preview] No. 4493 del
>>4485
>Why don't you update us on chaos any more? There is an /lv here too.

Just got into endchan.

I stopped updating 8chan because it seems to have died and everyone there is opposed to men taking female children as brides.

All there are there are stormcucks who workship mature white women now.

If you make a thread I'll update it from time to time.
Recent updates such as v89 has more foliage options, things to build, etc.

This week all my time has been taken up with arguing these legal arguments however, so no updates this week.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 22:12:32 [Preview] No. 4494 del
>We don't collect disability checks for mental illness and fap to CP all day,
Neither do I.

>so we don't have the free time that you do.
Tell us about your wage.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 22:20:46 [Preview] No. 4495 del
>You ritualistically invoke the "graduated law school and passed the bar" appeal to authority, which is comical on an anonymous imageboard,

When the legal arguments have no affect because they fly over your head, what more can I do.

You just do not know what you do not know.

Notice how once I quoted Stallman most of you quieted down (in every thread on each of the boards, also on the mailing lists)?

It's simple: you don't have a clue about any of the law surrounding "software licensing" (read: agreements pertaining to copyright alienation where the principal is a bunch of computer code). So every single "legal" argument any of you made dealt exclusively with the one page text known as the GPLv2. I cite copyright law, principals of contract and quazi-contract, situations where the grant will fail, etc etc, so on and so forth.... and you're back to the only thing you know none the wiser. It's as if one is focusing on a rock in the road and ignoring the rest of the path up to that rock and away from it.

In that situation an appeal to authority is the only way to get through to you ignorant fools.

You simply have not studied the law, and you imagining your "smart" because you're "techies" assume "there's nothing to it".


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 22:25:47 [Preview] No. 4496 del
>>4475
>I'm not sure what you're expecting people to post. There's no way to have a discussion, because you don't discuss, you sperg. There's no way to have a debate, because you have no argument.

You have no knowledge. That "sperg"ing contains the legal arguments, however you ignore them because you are not studied in the law, where I am.

When I point such things out you simply claim I'm lying.

The only thing that would convince you otherwise is if your hand was sawn off each time you made such an accusation: there is no reasoning with you, only force would work.

The fact that you are opposed to men taking sweet pretty young girls as pets (brides) shows that you are just an animal: You don't want what is beautiful and nice in the world: you are concerned only with surviving and reproducing. You are truly cattle. Probably like "meat on them bones" too. Like a fat cow.


Anonymous 06/02/2016 (Thu) 22:35:52 [Preview] No. 4497 del
>> 4489
> they can't rely on donations, they need to do crowd sourcing or other paywall related stuff to actually make a reasonable living from their work. Not everybody can afford to do it for free. GRsecurity's destruction is their own fault, but there is no viable solution at hand that can be utilize to fulfil the needs of everyone.

There is no real viable business model that doesn't involve withholding untill payment clears.... and there just really isn't any viable "copyleft" business model at all.

Software communism is anti(small)business, who would have thought it.

However, who says small businesses should be-able to take the massive works of others, modify those works with a much less massive contribution, and then close off that new product and claim the profits without reward for the originators of the gigantic base work?

The 1973 copyright act was written just to prevent that kind of thing.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 04:43:48 [Preview] No. 4510 del
Why don't they just distribute the patch and their libraries under their own propriatery license?

For instance a set of scripts that insert code and or replace code into the linux kernel code. Then withold the scripts with a non redistribution license? I don't see how scripts that tell a computer to do something to a gpl software is a derivative work until it is applied. After application it is a derivative work. But before application it can be proprietary.

So they need to write scripts that insert and replace code, and then compile to binary and destroy the input c files at the end. But to make it proprietary it would need to be precompiled processes. It takes linux kernel in and outputs patched linux kernel binary cout.

They should do that instead. Just sell kernels, or sell binaries of the patch containing no linux kernel code in the patch only instructions of where to replace the code.

Now GRSEC can make money selling kernels or make money selling binary executable patch files. Or both. You can redistribute the patched kernel as it becomes GPL on application but redistribution of the patch binary file is prohibited. Done, problem solved.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 04:55:39 [Preview] No. 4511 del
Why don't they just distribute the patch and their libraries under their own proprietary license?

They could distribute a precompiled binary that inserts and replaces text in the linux kernel cc input files and compiles them on the spot create a binary output linux kernel. Then the output is GPL but the binary patch is proprietary.
They can't restrict redistribution of the patched kernel binary but can prohibit redistribution of their patch binary that inserts code into the linux kernel. Done problem solved.

GRSEC.exe linux_kernel.tar.xz
cc blah
cc blah
cc blah

out: vmzlinuz-linux-grsec

then sell GRSEC.exe under non redistribution clause. But allow redistribution of the vmzlinuz-linux-grsec.

and stipulate that they won't sell to people that give out the final product. They could write that into their license. So if you don't agree then you don't buy GRSEC.exe, because the terms you agreed to would be that you don't redstribute GRSEC.exe or its output. And if you disagree then you don't agree to the terms of the GRSEC liscense and can't use it. Boom done.

Then you could bring an exclusive dealing / vertical restraints case against GRSEC by launching a complaint with the federal trade commission (FTC), if you think that it is substantially lessening competition downstream to restrict resale. Is this similar to resale price maintainance. GRSEC could state that the downstream firm could sell the compiled GRSEC kernel only if it is >$5000. This would be Resale Price Maintenence. They could still restrict redistribution of GRSEC_PATCH.exe period.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 05:11:52 [Preview] No. 4512 del
Oh and they should make it have a watermark. So that they add some bits to force the output binary to have a certain sha256 hash so that they can probably track it back to the person that they sold GRSEC.exe to. So each client gets a customized GRSEC.exe and a liscense activation key GRSEC_license.txt

so that you have to combine all three to get the output

GRSEC.exe GRSEC_license.txt linux_kernel.tar.xz

CC blah
CC blah
CC blah
CC blah

output: vmzlinux-linux-grsec

$ sha256 vmzlinux-linux-grsec

My586672Unique9q357reproducable23475sha256hashtotrack.

so that when it gets pirated they will know who did it.

Pretty neet huh? What a great idea. Get on it Spengler! : )


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 05:16:05 [Preview] No. 4513 del
>>4510
>For instance a set of scripts that insert code and or replace code into the linux kernel code. Then withold the scripts with a non redistribution license? I don't see how scripts that tell a computer to do something to a gpl software is a derivative work until it is applied. After application it is a derivative work. But before application it can be proprietary.

If patches are derivative works, and they very likely are in cases like this one (though some people argue otherwise), then either way GRSecurity would be a derivative work.

You have to think about how the patch itself is created, not the end result once it is created.

What the GRSec dev does is he takes the linux source code, goes through it, and makes thousands upon thousands of edits and changes and additions.

Then he takes a diff of that.

So what the patch is describing is a totality that the derivative work "linux kernel+GRSecurity changes". A certain patch can only work with a certain version of the linux kernel; it does not stand alone in any way.

This points towards it being a derivative work rather than, say, a "bolt on"
(Though in a number of cases (not all) even "bolt on"s have been found to be derivative works)

Think of how in creating GRSecurity the dev has really gotten into the guts of the linux source code, really touched all the contours and creavaces of it...

he didn't just write a program in a seperate file and then reference a subroutine of it once or twice to link it into the linux code.

No, these are extensive edits to the linux code itself, all over the place. One cannot live without the other. GRSecurity meanders all through the source tree like the blood vessels and capillary system in any mammal.

To make oblique refrence some old foundational cases:
A painting of Dorthy from the wizard of oz you painted yourself is a derivative work.

Now think of if you took a picture of dorthy from the wizard of oz, and then you did a partial tracing over that on a transparency, and then you tried to sell the tracing.

MGM would have a copyright infringement claim against you as It would be a derivative work of the motion picture still: your line work taking on the contours of their copywritten work: decending from it.

One often can't "get around" a court's rulings via process, they see through it usually.

I do not think a court would rule GRSecurity not a derivative work, due to how it was constructed (over years and years, always being innately connected and running through the linux source code). But who can say until it would be litigated?

Another answer is maybe Brad Spengler likes opensource and wants to keep it open?


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 05:49:45 [Preview] No. 4516 del
Dude its a file that says
go to line 55 and delete line 55
then insert my code for line 55

I own the copyright on that file. There has been no tracing onto dorothy until it is applied. This isn't even like tracing an outline of dorothy. Its like what I just typed up there.

Go to line 55 in file driver.cc and replace line 55 with my line 22.

Before application its nothing. After application it is a derived work because you just modified the linux source code and its now something else.

The original work is just a bunch of MY TYPING OF MY IDEAS with MY COPYRIGHT. In a neat little file that says what to do with it, aka replace line 55 of driver.cc with MY idea. My idea is my idea. It's new its novel. Once it's applied it becomes a derived work.

My idea could be this:

cout<< count to ten and turn the screen red on boot.

Replace line 55 of boot.cc with this idea.

Now you're going to tell me that if I place that in a text file with an instruction that says this

count_and_red.object(Line55,driver.cc)
bleep_and_bob_noises_on_speaker(Line456, memory_manager.cc)

and that i compile this into an exe

GRSEC.exe

that this is a derived work. No i don't think that case theory is sound, I think I could challenge that in court and win.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 05:52:57 [Preview] No. 4517 del
>>4497
I wouldn't say that is necessarily true, free software simply removes a position of control, from which money can be forced from the users. This doesn't mean that free software and capitalism don't mix, it just requires that things be done differently. For example being paid to write the software rather than trying to sell the software as a product, if people want your continued work then you get paid. Funding projects have shown that those who can pay are more than happy to and that a business model that teats its' customers as thieves from which they must force money isn't always successful. Put simply, some businesses fail regardless of license but a business model based on free software can work but it is different from proprietary.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 06:00:05 [Preview] No. 4518 del
>>4516
This is actually more like tracing a penis on a transperancy and placing it onto dorothy's head.

You could place a penis on anything...hence not a derived work until attached as a "bolt on" penis forhead.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 06:04:29 [Preview] No. 4519 del
Now I have this very unique transperancy film paper with a penis on it. And I'm selling it to you at a very low one time payment of $17,000. It's a true work of art. And I have a mental vision that you could very well attach this penis to anything but it probably goes best on a painting of Dorothy. Now what do you say? Do we have a deal for this transperancy paper with a penis on it. Only $17,000!! what a steal. Buy it now, and I'll include just for you a new shiny set of hairy balls. A value of $5,000, what a deal! Order now.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 06:28:55 [Preview] No. 4520 del
Is this guy related to Egon Spengler PhD. by any chance? Because I collect spores, molds, and fungus.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 06:45:03 [Preview] No. 4521 del
>>4495

>When the legal arguments

You've made no arguments.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 18:28:54 [Preview] No. 4556 del
>> 4521
Yes I have.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 18:32:46 [Preview] No. 4557 del
>> 4516

Dude! :

>Constructively, it remains the illicit re-licensing of a derivative work.

>The legal concept of construction exists specifically to deal with "clever" people who try to skate on a technicality.
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&highlightthresh=-1&mode=improvedthreaded&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=13849#post_comment

Lurn 2 law bro

(btw, according to >>4521 none of these are arguments, because he can't recognize legal arguments as he is not studied in the Law. >>4521 FUCK you ignorant anti-marry-girl-children stormfag mature-woman-worshiping techie piece of shit)


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 18:41:02 [Preview] No. 4560 del
>>4510
>>4516
>For instance a set of scripts that insert code and or replace code into the linux kernel code. Then withold the scripts with a non redistribution license? I don't see how scripts that tell a computer to do something to a gpl software is a derivative work until it is applied. After application it is a derivative work. But before application it can be proprietary.

If patches are derivative works, and they very likely are in cases like this one (though some people argue otherwise), then either way GRSecurity would be a derivative work.

You have to think about how the patch itself is created, not the end result once it is created.

What the GRSec dev does is he takes the linux source code, goes through it, and makes thousands upon thousands of edits and changes and additions.

Then he takes a diff of that.

So what the patch is describing is a totality that the derivative work "linux kernel+GRSecurity changes". A certain patch can only work with a certain version of the linux kernel; it does not stand alone in any way.

This points towards it being a derivative work rather than, say, a "bolt on"
(Though in a number of cases (not all) even "bolt on"s have been found to be derivative works)

Think of how in creating GRSecurity the dev has really gotten into the guts of the linux source code, really touched all the contours and creavaces of it...

he didn't just write a program in a seperate file and then reference a subroutine of it once or twice to link it into the linux code.

No, these are extensive edits to the linux code itself, all over the place. One cannot live without the other. GRSecurity meanders all through the source tree like the blood vessels and capillary system in any mammal.

To make oblique refrence some old foundational cases:
A painting of Dorthy from the wizard of oz you painted yourself is a derivative work.

Now think of if you took a picture of dorthy from the wizard of oz, and then you did a partial tracing over that on a transparency, and then you tried to sell the tracing.

MGM would have a copyright infringement claim against you as It would be a derivative work of the motion picture still: your line work taking on the contours of their copywritten work: decending from it.

One often can't "get around" a court's rulings via process, they see through it usually.

I do not think a court would rule GRSecurity not a derivative work, due to how it was constructed (over years and years, always being innately connected and running through the linux source code). But who can say until it would be litigated?

Another answer is maybe Brad Spengler likes opensource and wants to keep it open?


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 18:44:09 [Preview] No. 4562 del
>> 4516
>Finally, in Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., the court held that a distributor of new "levels" for a video game infringed the creator's derivative work right. 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). At first glance, this case seems again similar to the above. The alleged infringer simply marketed add-on modules, that an end-user could employ to create variations on the original work. So why the different result? The court distinguished Nintendo because the levels distributed in this case actually described "sequels" to the original game, whereas the add-on module in Nintendo merely enhanced the gameplay. In Nintendo the gameplay was still generated by the Nintendo game console whereas in Formgen the new levels actually directed a new telling of the video game's story. The court focused especially on the architecture of the Formgen game system, which consists of a rendering engine, an image library, and one or more files ("MAP" files) that describe the game levels and their content. The MAP files, therefore, define the very metes and bounds of the video game's story. And since Formgen created the initial video game story with their original MAP files, any other MAP files must tell a related and derivative story—a sequel, in a sense—of the original.


Still think you can win?


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 18:50:48 [Preview] No. 4564 del
>>4519

In the case of any GRSecurity patch it will ONLY cleanly apply to a very few specific versions of the linux kernel source code.

(no other operating system in the world, and a very specific version of the operating system code it is being "bolted on" as a defendant might (erroneously) claim)

So it's like your... transparancy... that only works with ONE frame of the movie, or maybe if you're lucky 3 frames (one previous to the targeted one and one subsequent).

Which heavily suggests, really proves conclusively, that your transparency was made with that specific movie in mind, and infact just 1 or a handful of frames in that movie and no other movie in the world.

Which suggests it was infact the work of a tracing, obviously a derived work, etc.

I don't think the court would be fooled, given the facts.

Also your perjury would become evident: It's obvious you dug into the code, not bolted on an additional device.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 18:52:37 [Preview] No. 4565 del
GRSecurity creates a sequel to Linux where the rusted and incomplete chainlink fence is replaced by a concrete wall and anti-air defense.

Why would anyone play the original?


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 19:15:23 [Preview] No. 4567 del
Nothing lowers the quality of an imageboard like MikeeUSA.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 19:17:41 [Preview] No. 4568 del
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

> Another update for full disclosure as it happens: The GRSecurity
> developer now claims that the two reddit sources (the guy from the
> russian hosting company, and the guy from the non-for-profit) are
> lying

I suggest challenging the GRSecurity developer to post that patch
and show us its license.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 19:24:10 [Preview] No. 4570 del
>>4564
It's not dug into the code until the patch is applied. You are wrong.

If I read the linux kernel (allowed since it is GPLv2, freedom to study the code) and then in a seperate text file make notes of psuedo code of things that I would like to change. ex.

Title: MyNotesOnLinux.txt
/BOF
At line 564 I would like a for loop that checks if a driver is working properly.

At line 634 I would like to delete line 634 to line 676. And instead output to the screen "SUCK IT!" ten times.
/EOF

Then what you're telling me is that the file MyNotesOnLinux.txt, is a derivative work of linux? Are you mental? Not only that I'm claiming that my file MyNotesOnLinux.txt is under MY copyright and that it is not lisenced under GPLv2. However when I go into the linux kernel and apply the changes the file
Linux_Kerenel_modified.cc, is now a modified linux kernel and is GPLv2. That's what I am claiming.

>>4562
This case was about using the image of DukeNukem on a sales box of a mod package that creates new levels. It used the character image of Duke Nukem on the box cover. This is where the copyright infringement case was brought to court over, namely over the image of the character Duke Nukem and reproduction of this image on a sales box cover.

> Do you think you can win now?
I'll skim some more documents about that case and get back to you. But probably for what I'm saying, I would argue it in court, I'd give it a go.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 19:41:25 [Preview] No. 4571 del
By the way Mr. Lawyer. Whether or not Brad Spengler is violating copyright law on the GPLv2 is one thing, however the reael law that Mr. Brad Spengler is breaking, is Section 7 of the Sherman Act, by attempting to impose vertical restraints known as REFUSAL TO DEAL. Report him to the FTC, for a sectionn 7 violation, and bring an Anti-trust violation case against him.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 20:06:22 [Preview] No. 4577 del
>>4570
>It's not dug into the code until the patch is applied. You are wrong.

Don't you know how Brad Spengler created GRSecurity in the first place.

Comon, you're a fucking moron at this point in the argument.

I'm saying that if you take a book.
Then you go throughout the whole book and you add a line of text here, a paragraph there, a page here, a word here here and there, and you do this 1000s of times...

And then you make a diff of the original book vis a vis your changes with meander all throughout the book...
then YES: that diff IS a derivative work of the book.

Infact, as things go, it is a derivative work specifically of edition 3.4.12.11 of the book.

There is no way to argue it stands alone, if that would even matter.

> Finally, in Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., the court held that a distributor of new "levels" for a video game infringed the creator's derivative work right. 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998). At first glance, this case seems again similar to the above. The alleged infringer simply marketed add-on modules, that an end-user could employ to create variations on the original work. So why the different result? The court distinguished Nintendo because the levels distributed in this case actually described "sequels" to the original game, whereas the add-on module in Nintendo merely enhanced the gameplay. In Nintendo the gameplay was still generated by the Nintendo game console whereas in Formgen the new levels actually directed a new telling of the video game's story. The court focused especially on the architecture of the Formgen game system, which consists of a rendering engine, an image library, and one or more files ("MAP" files) that describe the game levels and their content. The MAP files, therefore, define the very metes and bounds of the video game's story. And since Formgen created the initial video game story with their original MAP files, any other MAP files must tell a related and derivative story—a sequel, in a sense—of the original.

This guy from soylent got it right:

>Constructively, it remains the illicit re-licensing of a derivative work.

>The legal concept of construction exists specifically to deal with "clever" people who try to skate on a technicality.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 20:09:22 [Preview] No. 4578 del
>>4570

And the court ruled that even making a map that was ment to be used with the game was a derivative work. Look to what the court ruled on, not just to the initial controversy.

You Lose.


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 20:25:54 [Preview] No. 4580 del
>>4578

And what about MyNotesOnLinux.txt as presented? How do you think the court would rule on that file?


Anonymous 06/03/2016 (Fri) 20:42:57 [Preview] No. 4581 del
Since you like the Wizard of Oz by MGM so much i'll draw a parallel:

MyMovieReview.html
<HTML>
<TITLE> MyMovieReviewofWizardOZ </TITLE>
<BODY>
<FONT SIZE="+3">
THIS MOVIE WAS CRAP! <P>
IF I HAD TO REMAKE THIS MOVIE, I WOULD CHANGE THE FOLLOWING PARTS: <P>

EVERYTHING THE SAME UP UNTIL THE TORNADO.<BR>
THEN DOROTHY THROWS TOTO INTO THE TORNADO!!! WITH THE BASKET! HA! <P>
SHE STARTS LAUGHING!! <P>
THEN SHE ENTERS THE HOUSE! <P>
*ZOOM OUT*
THE HOUSE EXPLODES WITH DYNAMITE! <P>
*THE END*
*ROLL CREDITS*

What do you guys think of my idea? post comments in the comments section. This is going to be a rad remake!
</FONT>
</BODY>
</HTML>

Who owns the copyright on my html file?


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 03:32:56 [Preview] No. 4593 del
>>4581
If you took your notes, then reshot the film with your additions, then used the program "diff" to create a file which described the differences between the original work and your new improved Wizard Of Oz, yes that diff file would be a derivative work.

And that is how the grsecurity patches are created.
Brad Spengler edits a version of the linux source code, then instructs the program "diff" to create a file that is executable by the program "patch" that describes the difference between the original work and the new work.

A court will not be fooled.

You're not a lawyer, are you...


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 03:39:27 [Preview] No. 4594 del
>1973 US Copyright Act, at 17 U.S.C. §101,

>A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a derivative work.

...

>A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a derivative work.

...

>>4581
>Who owns the copyright on my html file?
...
>A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,

You tell me.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 06:58:53 [Preview] No. 4600 del
>>4593

>If you took your notes, then reshot the film with your additions
>And that is how the grsecurity patches are created.

grsecurity patches are filmed like a motion picture?

The Wizard of Oz analogy was never a good one for this situation, but you're just making it more absurd here.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 07:07:49 [Preview] No. 4601 del
>>4593 I agree that if the movie was remade based on those notes that the remade movie would be a derivative work. Definitively.

>>4581
So what you're claiming is that if anyone makes a review or synopsis of the plot of a movie in print or verbally, then that review or synopsis has the original copyright holder of the movie as the copyright holder of the review?

That can't be true.

However according to 17 USC 101, what I've written could be construed as an fictionalization and editorial revision of a pre-existing work and hence a derivative work.

This would apply to lines starting at
EVERYTHING THE SAME
...
ROLL CREDITS

Or you could try to extend that to the entire document the webpage or even further to the entire website it's hosted on. By that standard MGM now has copyright over this thread, and possibley the entire website.

You could construe those 5 lines I wrote as a screenplay, and hence a fictionalization and editorial revision of the original screenplay. Even though I didn't edit the original screen play but only recalled one plot element and two character names from the movie. I also didn't label the file "Wizard of Oz".
But rather WizardOz and Wizard and Oz are both english language words not specific to that work.

However It's reasonably clear that I'm talking about a movie that has the plot elements of having a tornado in it with a character named Dorothy and Toto. So you would probably be able to convince a Judge that I was refering to the movie "The Wizard of Oz".

So that means that any discussion of the plot of a movie by say Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert, did not have a copyright of Siskel and Ebert but instead the copyright of their review was held by the copyright holder of the movie being discussed, if their discussion contained any plot elements of the movie under discussion.

That really doesn't seem reasonable.

But based on 17 USC 101 that would be an interpretation of the law. A synopsis is a transformed abridgement. Any movie review or synopsis is under the copyright control of the original movie creator.

So what happens if they don't like your review? Can they exercise power through the copyright act to scilence you? Ask you to remove your review from the internet or be sued for damages?

However the author Frank Baum of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz in 1900. And so unfortunately I wouldn't be under that copyright, as it has expired. The plot elements are from the book not the movie.

Frank Baum died in 1919, it's been 97 years since the original copyright holder died.

I own the copyright on what I just wrote, not MGM. Either that or it can't be copyrighted.

Statute of limitations on copyright for works created in >1978 is lifetime+70years
95 years for works from 1923-1968 and expired for works from 1923 or older.

Copyright holder of original work = Frank Baum not MGM. MGM made a derivative work of the book, an adaptation of the 1900 book by Frank Baum.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 08:22:08 [Preview] No. 4604 del
In any event this is all irrelevant because what Spengler did (Threaten customers with non-renewal of contract if they redistribute his derivative works; Refusal to deal, and Exclusive dealing contract) is not a violation of Linus Torvald's copyright, or of the GPLv2, its a violation of trade law.

He's saying he won't do business with people who don't comply with his terms. That's potentially a Sherman Act violation (Antitrust Law) not a violation of copyright law.

Now if Spengler stops editing the code directly and starts doing it the way I described it, I would have to say that that isn't a derivative work. You could apply the patch to a text file of the bible. Replacing lines and inserting lines of c++ code into the bible. He should try that out, it might make for interesting reading.

We had a good chat though. Thanks for the info.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 11:18:28 [Preview] No. 4606 del
>Grsecurity is an extensive security enhancement to the Linux kernel
It's right there on their webpage. Good luck convincing the jury that it's not a derivative work.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 12:23:46 [Preview] No. 4608 del
>>4606
Sounds complimentary to the Linux kernel rather than derived from the Linux kernel


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 17:18:58 [Preview] No. 4621 del
>>4608
>Sounds complimentary to the Linux kernel rather than derived from the Linux kernel

Such maybe could be argued if we didn't have a 15 year history of the development of grsecurity, but we do: It's been a continuous development of making incremental changes to the linux sourcecode itself over 15 years.

Derivative work followed by derivative work upon derivative work.


>So what you're claiming is that if anyone makes a review or synopsis of the plot of a movie in print or verbally, then that review or synopsis has the original copyright holder of the movie as the copyright holder of the review?
>
>That can't be true.

It is and it can be.

The original rights-holder and the rights-holder of the previous derivative work you condensed both have a copyright infringement claim against you if your work was unauthorized.

You have defenses such as fair use and parody. The text you wrote above seems to me like both.

>That can't be true.
Who would have thought just making additional maps for a game would be declared a derivative work? But it was. And that is consistent with the text of the statute.

(A synopsis absolutely is a derivative work btw (condensed version), but could be argued to be fair use so no liability would arise if so)

>A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,

GRSecurity is a work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, and elaborations.

Alot of them. Along side GRSecurity is well over a decade of Mr Spengler saying what crap linux code is and how insecure it is: thus we are even given reason for the elaboration.

Now what one could argue is the whole thing is completely functional, holds not an ounce of artistic merit nor originality (I think this would fail), and none of it is copyrightable, not linux, not grsec. But there are years of software litigation to suggest otherwise (though usually they have some artwork with them: atleast a user interface... a kernel seems just to exist for function ...) .... In-which case anyone can do whatever they want.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 17:28:19 [Preview] No. 4622 del
>>4604
There are multiple avenues of attack and I didn't even think of that one, thank you for bringing it up.

The techies only look to the texts of the GPL and ignore everything else and deny that law actually exists. It's almost useless to argue with them.

As for the copyright claim: I think the court would take into account how grsecurity was created; that they way it is built is by a decades' long series of changes (annotations, revisements, etc) of the linux source code itself, and the patch is just a distribution of these annotations in a useless separate form that has no meaning outside of the very version of the kernel the patch was derived from.

One could use delta compression to "emerge" any piece of data from any sufficiently larger piece of data as a "diff", so the fact that one is being distributed a diff isn't proof of much of anything.

The construction of GRSecurity, over all these years, by modifiying the linux kernel day by day, year by year, and not the means of making known those annotations and changes, is what would be controlling I believe. The diff is just the container for that: little different than a tar.gz, or a CD, or a DVD in practice.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 17:36:08 [Preview] No. 4623 del
>>4600

You missed the rest of the argument and focused on process. Intentionally.

If you were to re-shoot the wizard of oz with your changes, that would be a derivative work.

(Grsec/Linux3.1.2)

What you are arguing is that if you then spliced out your changes to the wizard of oz, changes which relate only to that movie, and then told people "here are the changes, splice them back in"... what you are saying is that suddenly that is not a derivative work.
(Grsec-diff-Linux3.1.2)

The court has allready ruled that making entirely new, seperate, maps for a game was a derivative work of that work.

You think your additions to 'Oz aren't a derivative work?

You think GRSecurity isn't just because the changes, annotations, revisions, etc were mechanically spliced out and sent on their way?


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 18:45:29 [Preview] No. 4625 del
>>4623

My additions to Oz would be a derivative work derived from the plot elements and characters from the 1900 book the wonderful wizard of oz by L. Frank Baum who was the original copyright holder, of an expired copyright. The copyright on the wizard of oz is expired.

I could recast the movie, and reshoot it with changes and MGM wouldn't have any copyright claim on me. Dorothy will be in a red satin dress in my version, and be blond. And toto will be a poodle. The Tin Man, Scarecrow and the Lion will be CG and look nothing like the MGM version. There will be no singing.

The copyright on the plot and characters is expired.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 19:02:11 [Preview] No. 4626 del
>>4623

>You missed the rest of the argument and focused on process. Intentionally.

I didn't miss the rest of the argument, I didn't address it because it's irrelevant. Because this is a piss-poor analogy.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 22:35:58 [Preview] No. 4636 del
Image boards and memes must be a wet dream for copyright lawyers...

I wonder when that shoe is going to drop.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 22:45:21 [Preview] No. 4637 del
>>4625
It would be a derivative work of the MGM movie, which would be a derivative work of the book.

It's a chain. Read a casebook. You can't just disregard MGM's copyright because the book is public domain now. You stated that your screenplay was a revision of the movie. Not the book. (That being said, it is also, by extension, a derivative work of the book)

>>4625
Linux is not in the public domain, so it is very relevant as we are talking about Linux and grsecurity, using analogy.

So don't try to change the subject dipshit*

>>4626
>I didn't miss the rest of the argument, I didn't address it because it's irrelevant. Because this is a piss-poor analogy.

It is a fine analogy, idiot.

You've not been to law school have you, and you have not passed the bar...

You're just another self-important techie.

*techie dipshit.

Keep arguing about things you do not know about, techie. That's all you fucks do here.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 22:47:46 [Preview] No. 4638 del
(427.61 KB 982x674 afghan14.jpg)
As for the copyright claim: I think the court would take into account how grsecurity was created; that they way it is built is by a decades' long series of changes (annotations, revisements, etc) of the linux source code itself, and the patch is just a distribution of these annotations in a useless separate form that has no meaning outside of the very version of the kernel the patch was derived from.

One could use delta compression to "emerge" any piece of data from any sufficiently larger piece of data as a "diff", so the fact that one is being distributed a diff isn't proof of much of anything.

The construction of GRSecurity, over all these years, by modifiying the linux kernel day by day, year by year, and not the means of making known those annotations and changes, is what would be controlling I believe. The diff is just the container for that: little different than a tar.gz, or a CD, or a DVD in practice.


-----------------------



>>4608
>Sounds complimentary to the Linux kernel rather than derived from the Linux kernel

Such maybe could be argued if we didn't have a 15 year history of the development of grsecurity, but we do: It's been a continuous development of making incremental changes to the linux sourcecode itself over 15 years.

Derivative work followed by derivative work upon derivative work.


>So what you're claiming is that if anyone makes a review or synopsis of the plot of a movie in print or verbally, then that review or synopsis has the original copyright holder of the movie as the copyright holder of the review?
>
>That can't be true.

It is and it can be.

The original rights-holder and the rights-holder of the previous derivative work you condensed both have a copyright infringement claim against you if your work was unauthorized.

You have defenses such as fair use and parody. The text you wrote above seems to me like both.

>That can't be true.
Who would have thought just making additional maps for a game would be declared a derivative work? But it was. And that is consistent with the text of the statute.

(A synopsis absolutely is a derivative work btw (condensed version), but could be argued to be fair use so no liability would arise if so)

>A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations,

GRSecurity is a work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, and elaborations.

Alot of them. Along side GRSecurity is well over a decade of Mr Spengler saying what crap linux code is and how insecure it is: thus we are even given reason for the elaboration.

Now what one could argue is the whole thing is completely functional, holds not an ounce of artistic merit nor originality (I think this would fail), and none of it is copyrightable, not linux, not grsec. But there are years of software litigation to suggest otherwise (though usually they have some artwork with them: atleast a user interface... a kernel seems just to exist for function ...) .... In-which case anyone can do whatever they want.

--------------------

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 22:52:24 [Preview] No. 4639 del
Remeber: all these techies and stormcucks arguing that GPL == BSD license as long as one can draft an NDA

1) Have not one day of study of the law.
2) Have not graduated law school
3) Have not passed the Bar
4) Oppose men taking sweet cute young female children as brides

--------------------------------

So, audience; Who do you choose to believe?

Not only does the other side not know what it is talking about; Not only is it untrained in the field of study at hand; But it also hates that any man on this earth should ever get what is good.

> An Afghan girl stares at Warrant Officer Troy D. Anstine, executive officer, Headquarters and Service Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, as he explains her coloring assignment at the school near Forward Operating Base Geronimo March 31. She cautiously entered the school compound after the dodgeball game and is the first girl to attend class at the school. Marines said they hope to encourage more girls from the area to attend class in the future. Photo by Sgt. Brian Tuthill
>
> Just before the game had finished, an 8-year-old girl arrived to the school with three other young boys, who quickly joined the group of students while she kept her distance outside the compound.
>
> After the game, the school\u2019s Pashto interpreter returned and students went back to their studies. They recited and wrote Pashto numbers and then took on coloring assignments requiring them to pair the numbers to colors and color in the appropriate areas. The girl slowly and cautiously made her way into the compound and joined the class already in session.
>
> \u201cWe were so excited to have our first female student,\u201d said Anstine. \u201cShe was scared at first, but I think she had a good time. I hope we will see more girls come to school and start their education.\u201d


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 23:24:30 [Preview] No. 4640 del
First off you're talking to two people as one. >>4625 and >>4626 aren't the same poster.

>>4637
The html file would be a derivative of the book not the movie. There is no actual content from the movie in the html file, just references to character names. and a plot element, which are copyrights from the book.

If I remade the film using stills or sound from the movie it would be a derivative of the movie, or as you mention tracings or likenesses.


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 23:42:29 [Preview] No. 4641 del
>>4510
>>4511
>>4512
>>4516
>>4518
>>4519
>>4520
>>4570
>>4562
>>4571
>>4572
>>4574
>>4575
>>4578
>>4581
>>4601
>>4604
>>4625
>>4636

Are one poster, me.

I think your arguments are interesting, you attitude is not however.

Linus Torvolds hasn't claimed copyright infringement on the derivative works of GRSecurity patches or has he? If not then why are we talking about it?


Anonymous 06/04/2016 (Sat) 23:58:55 [Preview] No. 4642 del
The relevant law is anti trust law not copyright law. The fact that this didn't occur to you immediately indicates to me, that while you may be a lawyer, (focused on surveilling chans for copyright infringement for your movie studio clients in holywood LA ), you're not a very well versed lawyer.

No one has filed copyright infringement as of yet. Its a non issue.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 00:13:30 [Preview] No. 4643 del
>>4639
By the way Mr. Lawyer, you're going to lose your license to practice with #4)

>4) Oppose men taking sweet young female children to marry...

A criminal code violation called statutory rape.

I don't take anything you say on this topic seriously anymore, and I wouldn't hire you or recommend you to any clients.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 00:47:53 [Preview] No. 4644 del
(427.61 KB 982x674 afghan14.jpg)
>>4643
>By the way Mr. Lawyer, you're going to lose your license to practice with #4)
> >4) Oppose men taking sweet young female children to marry...
>A criminal code violation called statutory rape.
>I don't take anything you say on this topic seriously anymore, and I wouldn't hire you or recommend you to any clients.

I'd rather the western countries burn to the ground than forever live under your pro-woman's system

I would be happy to lose the civilization here, let alone anything else.

Deuteronomy 22, 28-29, in hebrew, allows men to rape girl children and keep them as a bride, aslong as she has not been given away allready.

Furthur on in Deuteronomy it is stated, plainly, in hebrew, to kill anyone who entices one to follow a ruler/judge/god other than that stated in Deuteronomy.

I pray that you, since you entice others to follow feminist western law rather than pro-man pro-marry-girl-children Deuterocanonical law, are killed.
The same for your clients, should they act in the same way and hold the same beliefs.

You fucking piece of shit.

>>4642
The relevant law is copyright (for the reasons I stated above that you have ignored).
Spengler has almost no market position; the anti-trust law would not be applied by the feds.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 00:54:53 [Preview] No. 4646 del
>>4641
>Linus Torvolds hasn't claimed copyright infringement on the derivative works of GRSecurity patches or has he? If not then why are we talking about it?
Linus also never required copyright assignment for contributions to Linux, so thousands upon thousands of entities have claim to parts of the linux source code.
It just so happens GRSecurity snakes through the whole thing like a ground-cover vine: touching nearly each and every place a security error could arise.

So while Linus has standing, so to do many many others.

Linux truely is a collective work
(note: it is not often the case with most works, usually organizations are much more careful with licensing and contributions
(usually everything's work-for-hire and owned by one organization))


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 00:56:15 [Preview] No. 4647 del
>>4644
And cue death threat. Also a criminal code violation.

Move to Syria.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 00:58:52 [Preview] No. 4648 del
>I don't take anything you say on this topic seriously anymore, and I wouldn't hire you or recommend you to any clients.

Read the faggot piece of shit:
>any male who likes young girls is to be ignored, disbarred, imprisoned, killed

Western culture (cuntture) from 150 years ago to now is worthless and those who uphold, promote, and force it on the rest of the world should be slaughtered.

I like Deuteronomy: anyone who would preach the impermissibility of having young girls as brides is to be killed.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 01:00:25 [Preview] No. 4649 del
>>4647
>Move to Syria.

To be bombed?

That is always the CUNTtures refrain: go away and die.

If I could, I would have Deuteronomy enacted and you would be killed and men would take female children as brides at will.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 01:02:23 [Preview] No. 4650 del
Remeber: anyone who acts against the interests of women in the western world has committed a criminal code violation.

Clearly those who uphold the criminal code, those who agree that men shall not have female children as brides, those who agree that man shall not be the master (ba'al) of the woman, these people should be cruely killed.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 01:27:28 [Preview] No. 4656 del
>PedoUSA is spamming this shit on this site too
pffthaha my sides


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 01:39:03 [Preview] No. 4658 del
>>4644
>>4646
Listen to this pedophile Jew preach his evil sins.

>Reminder that Jews worship Satan in synagogues.

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." --Jesus Christ, aka God

God Himself cursed you, but you fucking rats persist in perverting His Word. We believers in Jesus Christ know you liars to be cursed to eternity in Hell for worshipping Satan in your synagogues and lying about it to subvert everyone.

Go suck a baby penis you faggot Rabbi.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 03:21:38 [Preview] No. 4659 del
>>4648
You don't respect the laws of the United States of America, or the wisdom of the the United States Congress and Senate, or the state legislature where you live, so quite frankly pack up and go to another country. Because of this fact that you've just demonstrated shouldn't be practicing federal law period.

And yes if you were indicted and convicted for that particular crime you would be disbarred, and you should know that.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 04:10:19 [Preview] No. 4661 del
>>4659
> >>4648
>You don't respect the laws of the United States of America, or the wisdom of the the United States Congress and Senate, or the state legislature where you live, so quite frankly pack up and go to another country. Because of this fact that you've just demonstrated shouldn't be practicing federal law period.

No I do not, for I am not a woman nor a cuck.

>And yes if you were indicted and convicted for that particular crime you would be disbarred, and you should know that.

Oh my, and other people get imprisoned and killed for such things... entire cultures get bombed back to the stone age for it.

How lucky I would be!

>so quite frankly pack up and go to another country.

They're all being bombed by you, or subverted by you. There is no where to go.

In the past one could go to some parts of france, long ago.

And, when MEN ruled the USA, you could simply go to parts of the USA.

So no, I absolutely do not respect nor support your woman's government, and if it were in my power to be the enemy from within: I would be that.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 04:15:00 [Preview] No. 4662 del
>>4346
But it's not. It's quite obvious that it's perfectly possible to make non-GPL Linux kernel compatible clone that GRSecurity's patches could be applied to.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 04:20:33 [Preview] No. 4663 del
someone make a pic of a troll fishing with bait


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 04:41:32 [Preview] No. 4665 del
>> 4662
>But it's not.

>It's quite obvious that it's perfectly possible to make non-GPL Linux kernel compatible clone that GRSecurity's patches could be applied to.

No it isn't you fucking retard.

You FUCKING retard.

(Even ignoring how GRSec was built)
The ONLY thing a certain patch of GRSecurity can be applied to is a certain version of the Linux kernel.

This isn't a fucking ABI.

Oh, well I guess my forks of various opensource videogames are not derivative works either now! They're developed the same way GRSecurity was developed: took existing code, edited that existing code.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 04:42:44 [Preview] No. 4667 del
>>4658
>"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee." --Jesus Christ, aka God

Glad one christian sees Jesus for what he was (and what he certainly is preached as now in modern times):
And enemy of the God of the book of Deuteronomy.

His supporters today are those who wanted to (and have succeded in) casting down the laws
of the God of the book of Deuteronomy. (They wanted to return to the previous, more
egalitarian god preceeding Deuteronomy: a high priest of the god El is what Jesus is said to be,
before El simply became an epithet)

Even up till the 2000s in many Catholic countries, aswell as Muslim countries in
North Africa and central Asia, if a man raped a female child, he would take her as a bride.

Your activists had all those laws removed.
Those laws come directly from Deuteronomy, and are the expression of the mind of the God therein.

In Deuteronomy, the man is "ba'al" (master of the woman).
Elsewhere he is just a man.

He was elevated, and given his child brides.
A conquering solider, not the supplicant you have us all be.

While the Christian of today would drown you, the God of before
even restrains the father from striking you down in his house during the day.

The God of Deuteronomy makes clear the path to natural happiness.
The object of worship of today's christians casts you down into the Abyss.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 09:08:15 [Preview] No. 4673 del
>>4667
>Jesus
>enemy of God
k.


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 09:18:00 [Preview] No. 4674 del
>>4673
The Jews certainly thought so.

Read Deuteronomy in hebrew, now read the New Testament.

In one book you have the man on top. Even with girl children.
->Stone adulteress
->Man can have many brides
->'Married' Man screwing female not his, but not claimed by other man (ie: unmarried, unbetrothed) not adultery. Woman/girl has no claim on the man: only he has claim on the woman/girl
->Rape young girls (female children), ok, man pays father, keeps girl (pedophile rape, worst crime ever according to feminists (aka christians))
->Man is master of woman

In the other, bottom rail on top! (Ain't that shucks massa? Ha Ha!)
->Don't stone adulteress
->Man looking at a woman is "adultery" now
->Better a millstone (english translation, felt to be a condemnation of man+girl by americans and the english)
->Man dies for woman
->No male nor female, all one in christ, etc etc


Anonymous 06/05/2016 (Sun) 23:29:51 [Preview] No. 4724 del
>>4674
Your interpretation of Jewish law is mostly correct. These laws are to be applied to members of the Jewish community but not to outsiders who are to be treated as animals.

Your interpretation of the relationship of Christianity to Judaism is also mostly correct.

However since most civilized people, regard the implementation of these man made laws ( claiming to be of the mind of GOD ) as barbaric relicts of the stoneage; let us hope that what you pray for is ignored by GOD, and that men never impose this barbarity onto the whole of the world.

Return to GRSec discussion, and start a new board for Judaism or for Jewish Christian relations. I'd like to read more about your world view...just not here.


Anonymous 06/06/2016 (Mon) 00:36:29 [Preview] No. 4727 del


Anonymous 06/06/2016 (Mon) 01:51:40 [Preview] No. 4728 del
>>4724
>Your interpretation of Jewish law is mostly correct. These laws are to be applied to members of the Jewish community but not to outsiders who are to be treated as animals.

Those who don't like young girls are animals. They just respond to impulse "fuck big mature woman" "feel like man, even tho big mature woman has a gaggle of kids from other man" "muh white mature godess" "with shield or on it"

>However since most civilized people, regard the implementation of these man made laws ( claiming to be of the mind of GOD ) as barbaric relicts of the stoneage; let us hope that what you pray for is ignored by GOD, and that men never impose this barbarity onto the whole of the world.

He's answered my prayers twice, and I didn't pray for good things to happen. (But the God of Deuteronomy is a god of War)


Anonymous 06/06/2016 (Mon) 03:38:21 [Preview] No. 4734 del
>>4656
>>4657
Who is that nigger? He's been doing this to /pol/ for three months now, at least.


Anonymous 06/06/2016 (Mon) 19:49:33 [Preview] No. 4757 del
>>4352

>Licensee sublicenses derivative work to sublicensee.
Under GPLv2 again, giving permision to copy, modify, redistribute.
>Licensee stipulates that sublicensee may not redistribute the derivative work.

How was this communicated? In exact form. Is this in an appended licensee or verbally, or by email? What did he exactly communicate?

> Licenssee makes threats to ensure compliance with this demand that sublicensee not distribute derivative work.

So If he didn't place a new license on the patch but left it as GPLv2, he's still staying you have license to copy and redistribute. So he's not violating GPLv2 or the original license or copyright.

What he's saying is something like this:
Sure you can redistribute it, but if you do I won't talk to you or do business with you in future.

So he's not infringing on the license, or the rights given by the Liscensor. He's infringing on your right to do business and trade, post exercising the rights granted under the license.

Your case theory, using acting in "bad faith" is OK but I don't think it works here. You'd need more evidence and facts to make a determination. You need to get the specific details of the conditions and how they were communicated.

From what I've read so far he'll let you do it (redistribute), but if you do he wont' deal with you in the future. This is a verbal or written (email?) exclusive dealing contract, with a refusal to deal for people that break the contract.

>>4727
Interesting read. Bible study guy had some good points, you had some good points. Your arguments are good, but your method of discourse is bad.

I like girls over the age of 20, (women), and under no circumstances would I do anything sexual to a little girl. And if someone tried to come into my house to rape my daughter, they wouldn't get to pay me 50 shekles.

However this is what the verse says, I checked my JPS Jewish Tanakh, and there it is in black and white.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 00:20:25 [Preview] No. 4761 del
>>4757
>You'd need more evidence and facts to make a determination. You need to get the specific details of the conditions and how they were communicated.

The facts are very bare at this point, but before two weeks ago we had no facts at all. There is perhaps one first hand witness (the employee of the russian hosting co), Another witness that can tell us only that he was told not to redistribute by the party he got the patch from (another, richer, non-for-profit) and was asked for the source and declined as he was told the other non for profit would then lose access, and thus he would too.

These are all quickly posted public accounts, asides to a larger discussion that was taking place, and I assume the parties wouldn't be interested in elaborating, even if one could contact them, to no useful end (maybe they would be, who knows). They would have to be deposed by an interested party (a rights holder) in pursuant to a suit. One is is latin america, the other in russia. The larger non-for profit is also based in latin-america according to the latin-american source. This would be difficult and costly.

>I like girls over the age of 20, (women), and under no circumstances would I do anything sexual to a little girl. And if someone tried to come into my house to rape my daughter, they wouldn't get to pay me 50 shekles.

Then his blood would be upon your head (you would be liable).

Now, it is assumed that you are living amongst people you like, know, etc (one should not live in the mists of people you hate and could not see a girl of yours being mastered by)

Girls are for marrying, not for sitting on a shelf. They're a companion, like a pet. (And women are for making the next generation)

Young girls are often very cute and sweet. Women, though they induce the animalistic impulse sometimes, just are not like that.

Young girls are like a kitty cat.
Women are more like a hyena.

>However this is what the verse says, I checked my JPS Jewish Tanakh, and there it is in black and white.

They had the right idea and knew what was good in life. And it was all overturned, now seemingly forever.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 01:35:49 [Preview] No. 4763 del
(436.21 KB 3550x2376 mistymountains.jpg)
>>4761

>(one should not live in the mists of people you hate and could not see a girl of yours being mastered by)

Pedos in the mist...

I think you mean midst.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 05:23:53 [Preview] No. 4767 del
>>4763

Yes.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 07:29:51 [Preview] No. 4769 del
From soylentnews:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?threshold=-1&highlightthresh=-1&mode=improvedthreaded&commentsort=5&op=Change&sid=13849#post_comment
>Re:Playing lawyer (Score:2)
>by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday >June 05, @06:30AM (#355471) >Homepage
>
>But you didn't even address my argument. In fact, your long tirade affirms half of my argument.
>
>GRsec didn't violate the terms of the GPL license. The GPL license requires them to distribute their source code to their clients under the GPL license, which they do.
>
>The GPL does not require one to continue doing business with one's clients. If that were true, for example, Google would be legally bound to keep doing business with all Android vendors perpetually. GRsec is perfectly free to stop doing business with anyone who redistributes their GPL licensed source code.

------------------

Keep telling yourself that.

You are not studied in the law. Accept this.

You don't have the slightest clue how the law of agreements works (AKA: contracts etc)
which is why you say "you haven't addressed my point!"
I have. You are just too ignorant to realize that.

Similar to how most western peoples are too ignorant to realize men should be free to take as brides cute young girls, as once they were prior to feminism.

The fact of the matter is that GRSecurity is using the threat of an action or inaction to prevent sublicensees from enacting a privilege they have been given by the _original_ licensor to who's terms GRSecurity agreed, and to who's terms are the only thing _allowing_ GRSecurity to modify the kernel source code to create the derivative work and distribute it in the first place.

Obviously once you frustrate that agreement you lose your privileges under it. This is a basic point of the law of agreements.

You cannot say "I get what I want, but fk the rest of your terms", even if you are "clever" about it.
The linux licensors said that any distributed derivative work shall be freely re-distributable.
When you come to that license and think to yourself "haha, I shall circumnavagate that clause and cause my derivative work to NOT be redistributable in the real world" you have committed bad faith vis-a-vis the agreement and the court will not, when the licensor sues you for copyright infringement, recognize the clauses that would protect you (they will give them no effect, that is your reward for making sure that other clauses (redistribution) would be ineffectual).

The linux licensors want to eventually have changes "come back" to them. They adopted the GPL for this purpose. You frustrate the use of one term, you cannot hide behind another.

Very simple, I don't understand why you don't get this, they teach this in the first month or two.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 08:05:45 [Preview] No. 4770 del
> My own life in the Linux world is constant opposition.
>
> Every idea you bring to the table, gets shot down.
>
> You get no support for anything you want to do. If it doesn't agree with
> them, you've already lost.

I have encountered the same thing.
It is known as "design by committee" in other fields.

The solution I found is to just fork the FOSS games and never look back.

It's so much easier to get things done when you're the only one, at-least
once the original code-base has what you want from it. No months long
discussions for each new game feature, no meeting half way, etc.

> They want the code you have yet to produce, but they will try to prevent
> you from producing it.
>
> Then if you do manage to produce it on your own, they want it, and if
> they like it after all, they will take it.
>
> And that is the issue I have with Linux.

The Techies have been saying this: "grsecurity sucks, but they can do this, GPL is the BSD license
aslong as you have the presence of mind to draft an NDA"

The other side of the legal debate has been saying this: "grsecurity is vital, we don't want it to
go closed, if it is closed it is useless to us, it is sad to see free software become unfree, it is
like the end of a dream and the GPL was _supposed_ to prevent this. We do NOT want to return to the
shareware days and the good thing about free / opensource software, the magic, was that is _was_
fully featured software that was fully open and was of no cost: the only cost was the labor we all
contributed and was contributed back".

You aren't supposed to make money with libre software really: the whole point is that I hack on it,
and give it away, you hack on it, and give it away (and back), etc etc etc.

It was NOT supposed to be shareware, or a "preview". If someone wants that: just do not base your
derivative work on opensource "copylefted" works.

It would be better if GRSecurity, and any other important opensource software, were abandoned by
it's author than for it to become closed source but still be developed:

If it were abandoned there would be a _chance_ that some other dev would pick it up.
If it just goes closed source, that chance is diminished because the original dev can always out
code any new devs and the new guys on the open-fork would become dejected and fail and we would be
left with no grsecurity (as the closed one would be the only one) and a worthless kernel because it
cannot be secured.

This debate's goal, from the beginning, is to head off the closing of grsecurity, to plead with
Spender to not leave the FreeSoftware reservation, to not contribute to the sharewareization of
libre software.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 08:10:25 [Preview] No. 4771 del
(384.90 KB 1000x1620 Autism_Awareness_Ribbon.png)
>>4769

I assume you got banned from soylent news, so you're responding to soylent news posters on a totally unrelated site.

You're reaching unprecedented levels of autism.

Also, that fact that you're not a actually a lawyer becomes more obvious with every demented post you make. Give up the role playing. It was amusing for a while, but now it's just pitiable.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 09:44:47 [Preview] No. 4772 del
>> 4771
>Also, that fact that you're not a actually a lawyer becomes more obvious with every demented post you make. Give up the role playing. It was amusing for a while, but now it's just pitiable.

It seems that you think I am wrong on the legal analysis.
Give some examples as to why.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 09:48:41 [Preview] No. 4773 del
>>4771

>>4757 didn't think I was "demented", he disagreed with the strength of the case, but gave relevant critique.

You instead bleat out "u dun no what u tak! u lie!!" with no arguments. This suggests that you know nothing of the law: someone who was studied in the law would beable to make some legal counter argument. You have not. You don't even recognize any of it. It's all greek to you.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 12:08:39 [Preview] No. 4776 del
How this idiot argues is to post the same damn pic with the same damn repost and bump up threads. The solution it seems against these types of people is to have a vol, mod, or owner to autosage the thread.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 19:25:35 [Preview] No. 4780 del
>>4776

Yep. The amount of tolerance MikeeUSA gets for his autism is astounding. Everything he posts is shit.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 20:55:15 [Preview] No. 4784 del
>>4776

RMS' post opinion is the most important opinion, it should be reposted often.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 20:56:56 [Preview] No. 4785 del
I see >>4771 has no response to >>4773 .

Fellows of the law: why would you say this is? Why does >>4771 not respond? Is >>4773 likely correct in his assesment of >>4771


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 21:30:36 [Preview] No. 4786 del
>>4784

B-b-but RMS hasn't gone to law school and passed the bar!


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 22:56:27 [Preview] No. 4787 del
(588.17 KB 2088x2088 rms.jpeg)
>>4786

A kingpin like RMS doesn't need to do shit. Or are you trying to step up you fucking bitch?

There ain't no bigga nigga than RMS, Period.


Anonymous 06/07/2016 (Tue) 23:29:24 [Preview] No. 4790 del
(384.90 KB 1000x1620 Autism_Awareness_Ribbon.png)


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 00:55:25 [Preview] No. 4793 del
(10.09 KB 480x360 0.jpg)
>>4790

Has no answer to:

>>4773

Because >>4790 is a dumb animal.
As a dumb animal he does't like young girls, only likes wide hips big beautiful white wimmin of prime breading stock. A child' bearin' woman!

Pic not related.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 00:57:26 [Preview] No. 4794 del
Dubya has nominated another caveman for a federal appeals court. Refreshingly, the Democratic Party is organizing opposition.
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.
Some rules might be called for when these acts directly affect other people's interests. For incest, contraception could be mandatory to avoid risk of inbreeding. For prostitution, a license should be required to ensure prostitutes get regular medical check-ups, and they should have training and support in insisting on use of condoms. This will be an advance in public health, compared with the situation today.
For necrophilia, it might be necessary to ask the next of kin for permission if the decedent's will did not authorize it. Necrophilia would be my second choice for what should be done with my corpse, the first being scientific or medical use. Once my dead body is no longer of any use to me, it may as well be of some use to someone. Besides, I often enjoy rhinophytonecrophilia (nasal sex with dead plants).
Stallman archives (28 June 2003)


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 00:58:32 [Preview] No. 4795 del
(522.28 KB 850x1200 aimeawoo1463888805180.jpg)
"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. "


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 01:01:38 [Preview] No. 4796 del
(58.88 KB 600x675 girlpirate.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VISLlmJOzx8

> Dutch pedophiles have formed a political party to campaign for legalization.
> 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.
> "Dutch paedophiles form political party" (5 June 2006)


Is he right?


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 01:19:27 [Preview] No. 4797 del
Hey Mike when are you gonna add lolis to your shitty game


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 03:17:28 [Preview] No. 4800 del
>>4793
It's the other way around, fuccboi. You're constantely posting the same post because you're butthurt by how GRsec could CONCEPTUALLY proprietize what isn't proprietary and get away with it, just like the CONCEPT of living in an anti pedo world that doesn't accept the type of sexual child abuse that you want to justify, lowering yourself to being more useless than fertilizer.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 04:20:03 [Preview] No. 4801 del
>>4800

Still no answer to >>4773

But yes, studying or practicing the law is actually pretty useless to "society". "Society" just wants what is good for women and has jettisoned anything good for men, so I'm glad I chose this field :)

Glad people like you get fleeced.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 04:29:42 [Preview] No. 4802 del
cant respond, shitty site.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 04:29:52 [Preview] No. 4803 del
>>4797

When someone models wikipe-tan etc and puts it under an OSS license.
The loli anime girl cannot be based off of some show etc. I am not good at modeling people.

>>4800
>You're constantely posting the same post because you're butthurt by how GRsec could CONCEPTUALLY proprietize what isn't proprietary

They cannot. I already posted the legal reasons why they cannot. It's up to one of the 1000s of linux copyright holders to bring suit however.
.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 04:30:07 [Preview] No. 4804 del
>the type of sexual child abuse that you want to justify,

Girls should be sexually abused, that is their function in life: to be a slave and pet of a man so that he may be happy.

Everyone accepted this before feminism.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 04:36:27 [Preview] No. 4806 del
>>4801
He had already argued his case, but you're not the judge nor the jury in this moot court run by anonymous people in a dead imageboard. He seems to had called out on your BS and refuses to argue as his own level and resort to ad hominen as you had been doing as well as throwing in a red herring that has nothing to do with the case contrary to your preconceived notions. You had been kicked out of multiple websites and multiple imageboards as you persist in your ever inflating autism to keep this dead horse of a thread alive.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:51:41 [Preview] No. 4808 del
Why can't I post to this fucking site?


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:53:28 [Preview] No. 4809 del
ARE ONLY TINY POSTS ALLOWED TO THIS PIECE OF SHIT WEBSITE?


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:53:45 [Preview] No. 4810 del
>>4806
>He seems to had called out on your BS

If it is such BULLSHIT how is it that I am acknowledged to have a case theory at all?

Tell me that you FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT (>>4806 ).

I am asking YOU (>>4806 )this: have you graduated law school? Have you passed the bar? Have YOU studied law at all?


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:53:58 [Preview] No. 4811 del
No?

See THAT is why you say "he SEEMS to have called you out on your BS". You cannot tell. You just ignorantly read and then point at what you like better.

If I ever met you I would kill you you self-sure piece of SHIT.

Do you know what a case theory is, have you ever heard the term before another talked of it:


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:54:22 [Preview] No. 4812 del
>> 4757
>Your case theory, using acting in "bad faith" is OK but I don't think it works here. You'd need more evidence and facts to make a determination. You need to get the specific details of the conditions and how they were communicated.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:54:36 [Preview] No. 4813 del
See, this is a post from someone who has an idea about what is being discussed.

Notice the difference >>4806 ????


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 06:54:48 [Preview] No. 4814 del
Here is a mailing list discussion where I have argued, at a good place for jumping in (look to before and after):
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016606.html

You'll notice that people who have an idea about what they are talking about agree with me >>4806 , or atleast don't try to argue against the legal aspects but argue the effects going after the alleged infringement would have.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 07:03:08 [Preview] No. 4815 del
GRSecurity rocks, regardless of the endless licensing debates that have been part-and-parcel of free software / opensource since the beginning. Glad Spender makes it.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 07:42:38 [Preview] No. 4816 del
>>4810
>you
I'm not him, Kurisu and/or Mikee, idgaf.

Here's the same stupid shit by different people:
https://8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html

By technicality, Spengler isn't doing anything that isn't violating GPL2 if one understands the details. If anything, you're trying to undermine the most secure linux kernel through SJW shenanigans as a crypto Jew. An appeal to authority is meaningless in an anonymous imageboard, but why don't you show off your piece of paper without redacting any information off, preferably as a picture with a timestamp, a scanned image of said proof, and info of what lawyer guild(s) you're in with physical proof as a picture and as a scanned image of said proof. DO IT FAGGOT


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 07:52:38 [Preview] No. 4817 del
The following is from 8ch's >>> /tech/608083:

" >Kurisu

I would be glad to have Kurisu on this and the endchan thread, and every other thread, here's a list:

https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=16/06/02/214243

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-05/msg00114.html

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016589.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11808914

https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/4m6mm5/libreplanetdiscuss_grsecurity_is_preventing/

https://sys.8ch.net/tech/res/605120.html

http://boards.4chan.org/g/thread/54839391

http://endchan.xyz/tech/res/4339.html

http://lwn.net/Articles/689385/

I was very happy when he enriched the /cow/ thread and ruined it for them and you anti-marry-girl-children people (you should be executed under the terms found in Deuteronomy (hebrew)) "

It seems like it's MikeeUSA for all we know, but just look at all this butthurt in multi website shitposting.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 08:06:59 [Preview] No. 4818 del
>>4817
Post more.
(How did you get a long post through?)


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 08:07:50 [Preview] No. 4819 del
>>4817
>It seems like it's MikeeUSA for all we know, but just look at all this butthurt in multi website shitposting.

Who is this "MikeeUSA"???


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 08:08:49 [Preview] No. 4820 del
>>4816
Asking people to doxx themselves is against the rules, take it to >>>/b/


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 09:56:05 [Preview] No. 4821 del
>>4820
The only three global rules are:

Nothing illegal under US law (Nevada)
No suggestive audio-visual content of underage children. Loli ok.
No flooding/spamming for the purpose of advertisement.

If you didn't get it, the pedo is trying to use an appeal to authority in a fucking anonymous imageboard in demanding the anon that's just merely giving a counter example, a fucking theoretical scenario then the pedo and the other anon had a back and forth yet the discussion didn't go anywhere because the pedo then threw in a red herring about women, was against American laws yet claims to know law therefore he doesn't even deserve to be a lawyer, all the while at a certain point, the pedo resulted to reposting shit and again, claiming that he's a lawyer. The guy who's saying that they wonder why I can post longer posts is probably the pedo wanting to spam his reposts again but can't. Perhaps the global mods threw in a filter and MD5 block on some pictures he used to shitpost, which is why he had changed up his pictures.

His pro pedo preaching is now something that a end/pol/ vol decided to lock any new threads he decides to make or bumps in old threads that had their run. Unfortunately, he's probably the first successful shitposter in ruining endchan to a significant measure felt in the more popular boards he decides to spread his cancer onto. I had enough of it watching this madness as a lurker which is why I came in here.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 09:59:25 [Preview] No. 4822 del
>>4819

He has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page. You can look him up there.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:10:21 [Preview] No. 4851 del
> Nothing illegal under US law (Nevada)

Doxxing is illegal under US federal law, idiot.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:11:27 [Preview] No. 4852 del
>>4823

Grsecurity is certainly a derivative work.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:12:48 [Preview] No. 4853 del
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016606.html

Thank you Sam for yet again wading thru all of these misconceptions about the GPL and copyright licenses. It really is very clear. The GPL allows people to modify the software ONLY if they agree to the conditions of the license, just like any other copyright holder does when they LICENSE software. The license is the only thing that allows more than 'fair use'. Grsecurity is welcome to work on anything they like, or not. But if they want to modify and redistribute the Linux kernel, they need to abide by the GPLv2, which requires allowing free redistribution of their modifications. Note that they aren't just offering a driver or some sort of add-on or plugin. Their latest "test" patch at
https://grsecurity.net/test/grsecurity-3.1-4.5.5-201605291201.patch

modifies over 3000 distinct files in the kernel.

But really, this discussion about copyright and license philosophy clearly doesn't belong here. There is tons about it to read online, and discussions can go to the Open Source Initiative "License Discuss" list:

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/

among others. Also see this page for more information and links: http://www.fsf.org/licensing

I found it helpful to get the initial notice of complaints about Grsecurity, which seems relevant to Ubuntu in a variety of indirect ways. But unless there is something else particularly relevant to Ubuntu about that, I'd ask people to find the more appropriate venues for the conversation.

Cheers,

Neal McBurnett http://neal.mcburnett.org/


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:13:37 [Preview] No. 4854 del
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2016-June/016603.html

On Thu, 2016-06-02 at 14:35 +0200, Xen wrote:
> The intention of the GPL is not really relevant.
>
> What happens is that the authors remain to have a say about how the
> product is used, if copyright is at play (at least the idea of
> copyright).

Yes, and the authors stated they require you to allow redistribution of
any modifications under the same conditions of the GPL.

> Now in actual effect that is what would happen. The person doing the
> work would see his livelihood taken away by "thieves" and his added
> value would cease to be any added value; as such the whole idea and
> reason for copyright would cease to exist; it is contradictory in
> terms.

This exactly has happened many times. If you take a proprietary piece
of software, make changes and resell it (breaking the license agreement
you received it under), then the original authors are perfectly in
their rights to take away their livelihood, and this is no different
with an GPL'd piece of software.

> Does the owner of the road also own the car?

No, but he gets to decide what cars to allow on the road, and under
what conditions they are allowed.

> > Saying that nothing is owed and that there is no agreement, would
> > suggest that after buying a proprietary piece of software, I can
> > now
> > modify it and resell it to other people, despite this being against
> > the
> > intention of the author.
> Nothing monetary is owed, and therefore not any amount of work
> either.
> After all, in any such agreement, it would not depend on whether the
> work was actually done, you cannot in advance claim possession of
> all
> work done by anyone.

Nobody is saying any amount of work is owed. But, any work done, is
subject to the restrictions of the license.

> The taking of all work for all eternity is simply a form of hostage
> taking. That is like saying you sign a license deal with a record
> company, but the license states that you can never go to another
> company
> ever after; you are bound to it for all eternity.

No it's like saying you sign a deal with a record company, who take
copyright of the songs you produce while there. After leaving the
record company, you can't re-publish your old songs, or use them as the
basis to create new songs, without permission from the record company.
That is how copyright works.

> So what is saying you should have access to the work? Well everyone
> has, doesn't it?

No, anyone who has accepted the license and chosen to download the code
has access. It's not like you picked up an apple from a public tree.

> I just don't think "the GPL should be enforced" follows from what
> you
> say. That should or would only follow if you consider the GPL holy
> in
> any sense. In actual copyright law, the /more/ changes something
> has,
> the /more/ it is an original work, or substantial work, and the more
> substantial your changes, you have more access to a copyright of
> your
> own. And the more value it adds, the less it will be seen just as a
> copy, or modification. It will be seen as an addition.

Just because you have copyright on your own changes, doesn't change the
conditions of the original work, unless it is such a small amount that
it can be considered fair use.

> and pretty much "public domain or at least common infrastructure"

So, anybody that has access to Windows or Word, they are allowed to
redistribute and resell copies? Because, they must be also be big
enough to be considered "public domain or at least common
infrastructure".




Ultimately, it seems to me, that most of your arguments are arguing
that copyright law doesn't exist at all. It seems you are telling me,
that as soon as someone has a copy of any piece of work, they are free
to do anything they want with it.

So, what do you think copyright is?

p.s. Please try to keep replies a little shorter than an entire essay,
otherwise they will never be read in full.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:15:37 [Preview] No. 4856 del
>modifies over 3000 distinct files in the kernel.
>"not a derivative work."
>lol


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:18:18 [Preview] No. 4857 del
>>4822
>He has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page. You can look him up there.

How is it that a person who has a page that was written about them and then uploaded to the website Encyclopedia Dramatica has attended law school, graduated, passed the bar, and knows more about the law than you? How is that possible?


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 20:27:13 [Preview] No. 4859 del
>>4821
>spread his cancer onto. I had enough of it watching this madness as a lurker which is why I came in here.

Quoting the based Deuteronomy is "cancer".

Yep, you need to be killed (according to based Deuteronomy).

>was against American laws yet claims to know law therefore he doesn't even deserve to be a lawyer,
The more you know of the law, the more you hate it.

That you do not hate the law, shows that you have not studied it.

>If you didn't get it, the pedo is trying to use an appeal to authority in a fucking anonymous imageboard in demanding the anon that's just merely giving a counter example,

Anon's counter example was not a counter example, it was just idiocy, ofcourse one would have to be studied in the law to realize this... shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Of all the counter-point arguments submitted, it is very easy to dump the chaff and recognize who, on the other side, knows something of what they are talking about:

Notice only one person used the phrase "case theory".

The rest of the posts are largely lay-idiots wading beyond their depth.

>fucking
>fucking
Men should do this to young girls; that is what they were created for; to be a nice pet and toy for a man, so that the man may be happy

Read Deuteronomy 22, 28-29 in hebrew.


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 21:02:43 [Preview] No. 4867 del
>>4821
>His pro pedo preaching is now something that a end/pol/ vol decided to lock any new threads he decides to make or bumps in old threads that had their run. Unfortunately, he's probably the first successful shitposter in ruining endchan to a significant measure felt in the more popular boards he decides to spread his cancer onto. I had enough of it watching this madness as a lurker which is why I came in here.

U Mad?


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 22:08:14 [Preview] No. 4869 del
> >>4822
> >He has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page. You can look him up there.

>How is it that a person who has a page that was written about them and then uploaded to the website Encyclopedia Dramatica has attended law school, graduated, passed the bar, and knows more about the law than you? How is that possible?

Anyone know how this is possible?????!!???


Anonymous 06/08/2016 (Wed) 23:48:00 [Preview] No. 4871 del
>>4852
>not even law schools believe in the extreme definitions of the gpl
>ignores fucking everything
go fuck yourself mikeeusa, you are cursed by your own delusions.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 00:51:53 [Preview] No. 4872 del
>>4867
justice makes me horny.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:13:34 [Preview] No. 4875 del
> >>4822
> >He has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page. You can look him up there.

>How is it that a person who has a page that was written about them and then uploaded to the website Encyclopedia Dramatica has attended law school, graduated, passed the bar, and knows more about the law than you? How is that possible?

Anyone know how the FUCK this is possible?????!!???


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:16:36 [Preview] No. 4876 del
>>4857
Yeah, you have no standing, still arguing in a moot court without a judge nor jury, thinking that they're making some difference in the world. How pitiful.
>>4855
>I posted it again, ma!
>>4859
>binding yourself to Judaism
Proselyte Jew detected, go cut your dick off and rape a girl in the field, you know you want to do it, but you can't, because you're CUCKED by the law.
Your opinion and "experience" has no merit anyways. You can't win the case without breaking some rules.
>>4854
The authors of the GPL are subject to interpretation under the court of law, so what is said here: https://www.law.washington.edu/lta/swp/Law/derivative.html stands, and it's up to the judge to pass judgement which you are not. Arguing any further shows your incompetence and butthurt even more.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:17:38 [Preview] No. 4877 del
>>4869
>>4875
>he posted it again!
laughing_girls.png


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:22:06 [Preview] No. 4878 del
>>4871

The case cited there that run against "GPL Stronk" crowd here have to do with optional 3rd party hardware additions.

The court found that the 3rd party hardware addition was not a derivative work.

The case cited that supports the "GPL Stronk" position has to do with software products, which included _original_ maps and the like.

The court found that the 3rd party software package addition was a derivative work.

So believe whatever you'd like.

The fact of the matter is that the patch known as "GRSecurity" modifies over 3000 (three thousand) files of the linux kernel.

But if you would like to imagine a court would not find it to be a derivative work, well, I mean, how could someone with a fucking Encylopedia Dramatica page, someone who is pro-marry girl children, ever know even a slight bit about the law than you? I mean, come-on, 2016.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:26:48 [Preview] No. 4879 del
>>4876
>mooting a case has no merit in life

>discussing legal issues ahead of time without a judge is pointless, no chance of inspiring a suit, nope

>authoring software without payment confers no benifit

>handball and tennis are shitty sports


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:27:47 [Preview] No. 4881 del
> >>4822
> >He has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page. You can look him up there.

>How is it that a person who has a page that was written about them and then uploaded to the website Encyclopedia Dramatica has attended law school, graduated, passed the bar, and knows more about the law than you? How is that possible?

Anyone know how the FUCK this is EVEN possible?????!!???


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:30:00 [Preview] No. 4882 del
>>4881
>>4875
>>4869
look ma, I posted it again! XD


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:33:40 [Preview] No. 4883 del
>>4876
>Proselyte Jew detected, go cut your dick off and rape a girl in the field, you know you want to do it, but you can't, because you're CUCKED by the law.
>Your opinion and "experience" has no merit anyways. You can't win the case without breaking some rules.


>when the Catholic Churched argued passages in the Old Testament to imprison Galeleo, they were Jews.
>when Henry IIX back and forth with the Pope, citing the Old Testament, they were both Jews.
...
>when Jesus quoted the Old Testament, he was a Jew.
...
>when Paul cited the Old Testament, he too
...
>was a Jew

>Marrying cute little girls is "Jew"ish
>"Jew"ishing is "bad"
>PS: Deuteonomy 22, 28-29 is not about raping a girl in a field.
>Learn to count, retard.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:34:08 [Preview] No. 4884 del
> >>4822
> >He has an Encyclopedia Dramatica page. You can look him up there.

>How is it that a person who has a page that was written about them and then uploaded to the website Encyclopedia Dramatica has attended law school, graduated, passed the bar, and knows more about the law than you? How is that possible?

Anyone know how the FUCK this is EVEN FUCKING possible?????!!???


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:35:25 [Preview] No. 4885 del
(203.60 KB 1600x1067 Stallman.jpg)
>>4871

The case cited there that run against "GPL Stronk" crowd here have to do with optional 3rd party hardware additions.

The court found that the 3rd party hardware addition was not a derivative work.

The case cited that supports the "GPL Stronk" position has to do with software products, which included _original_ maps and the like.

The court found that the 3rd party software package addition was a derivative work.

So believe whatever you'd like.

The fact of the matter is that the patch known as "GRSecurity" modifies over 3000 (three thousand) files of the linux kernel.

But if you would like to imagine a court would not find it to be a derivative work, well, I mean, how could someone with a fucking Encylopedia Dramatica page, someone who is pro-marry girl children, ever know even a slight bit about the law than you? I mean, come-on, 2016.

---

Re: GRsecurity is preventing others from employing their rights under version 2 the GPL to redistribute source code
Richard Stallman (May 31 2016 10:27 PM)

[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

If I understand right, this is a matter of GPL 2 on the Linux patches.
Is that right? If so, I think GRsecurity is violating the GPL on
Linux.

--
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation (gnu.org, fsf.org)
Internet Hall-of-Famer (internethalloffame.org)
Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:35:54 [Preview] No. 4886 del
>Richard Stallman
...
>Is a Jew.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 01:37:41 [Preview] No. 4887 del
>>4821
>His pro pedo preaching is now something that a end/pol/ vol decided to lock any new threads he decides to make or bumps in old threads that had their run. Unfortunately, he's probably the first successful shitposter in ruining endchan to a significant measure felt in the more popular boards he decides to spread his cancer onto. I had enough of it watching this madness as a lurker which is why I came in here.

U Mad?

Sounds like u mad...


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 08:27:38 [Preview] No. 4900 del
Ok here is the answer for MikeeUSA:

1) Make a commit on the linux kernel
2) Bring tort and copyright violation cases against GRsecurity.
3) Post back here when the case goes to trial.

You'll be a hero. DO IT!


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 08:57:11 [Preview] No. 4901 del
>>4900

Would not work, the secret stable patches are for old (stable) kernels. Remeber when linux was stable....

So even if grsecurity had to go and fix whatever shit code I made that linux accepted, so that it is secure, that would only be in the new testing releases, probably would never be in the stable release tree for.. yeearrrss, if ever.

My shit code might just be functional code, doing nothing novel or interesting, in-which case it can't even be copyrighted.

My shit insecure code might be a de minimus change (small, not really important), inwhich case the court wouldn't give it protection either.

I mean, if I wrote some insecure code to implement a file system, and then got it merged into the kernel, and then grsecurity was like (this is every day): "sigh, same old shitty insecure way of coding, now we fix", then I would have some standing... but not until it got into the "secret" branch.

And the Judge might be "oh my, this filesystem is the only way to implement this type of thing, thus functional (my file system would just be a textbook implementation of a B-Tree. It would be called B) and not copyrightable MikeeUSA: WHY DON'T YOU GO ASSIST DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT HAS SOME NOVELTY, LIKE A GAME. I would then go and do that. Spender would never come fix whatever poorly secure code in the game there is tho :(

Now, as a whole, Linux has some novelty to it, and parts of it have novelty, so the people who wrote those parts would have a case if they were mad. Linux devs and Spender seem to hate eachother for some reason.

Linux: "We need no security, fuck off"
Spender: "No (to both)"


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 09:14:10 [Preview] No. 4902 del
>>4900

We also start to wade into the murky waters that are collaborative works.

There is a reason the FSF requires copyright assignment.

Here we have pieces of code all over the place owned by all different entities and persons, and then edited, and ever more property claim placed upon previous claim (a stack of rights applying to even a small amount of code often). So, to have standing one would have to have GRSecurity have created a derivative work based on your copyrighted code. That is: they would have to have modified it. Many people have a claim, not every kernel contributor has a claim as far as I can think. So one has to have had their code modified and: The code has to be not purely functional and some what novel (not the _only_ way to do it, and doing something... that takes some thought etc). Some code suffices, other does not.

I couldn't imagine a court allowing a person who has contributed to a collaborative work, but a part that was untouched by the derivative work, being granted standing by the court. But I _may_ be wrong. The point is the person must have a copyright claim. Does a person who has contributed to a seperable collaborative work have standing if a 3rd party violates the copyright on that collaborative work, but the violation does not touch the specific part the claimant contributed?

I don't know. I don't think so, especially for software (rather than a painting where the whole piece of artwork is a whole).

Linux is like a patchwork quilt. If I copy the design of a patch piece, can a contributor to the quilt design, but not of that specific patch piece, bring suit?

I wouldn't think so (but I may be wrong, I haven't read cases on collaborative works)). I think it would have to be someone who contributed to the design of that specific patch, and/or(additionaly) whomever was overseeing the design of the quilt as a whole (linus).


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 10:03:41 [Preview] No. 4905 del
>>4899
Noted, added some responses.


Anonymous 06/09/2016 (Thu) 12:12:26 [Preview] No. 4914 del
>>4899
I posted this response at the 8chan thread but it seems to have been deleted, trying again:

>>610421
>Deuteronomy 22, 28-29, hebrew.
>implying every virgin, non-engaged female is children.

Read the hebrew.
It says right there in the hebrew:

נַעֲרָה na`arah

Feminine of H5288; a girl (from infancy to adolescence):—damsel, maid (-en), young (woman).

Thus includes female children.

Ofcourse you christians will swear the opposite for all time. Go to hell.

(Actually, the hebrew glyphs actually say: נַעַר na`ar , but it is na`arah by implication)

(If the man rapes a child, she becomes his wife (woman))

>implying anyone would give his daughter to a rapist.

He(1) must. If he(1) kills the man(2) during the day his(2) blood is upon his(1) head. If he(1) entices others to follow another judge/ruler/god then he(1) is killed. He(1) cannot go to the right nor the left of Deuteronomy.


>implying anyone would give his daughter to a rapist.

1: The rapist has allready taken the girl... That's what makes him a rapist :)


>You are an utterly idiot shithole and only the internet and the modern law is what defend you from us to massacre the monsters like you.

Not too long ago:
>In the United States, as late as the 1880s most States set the minimum age at 10-12, (in Delaware it was 7 in 1895).[8] Inspired by the "Maiden Tribute" female reformers in the US initiated their own campaign[9] which petitioned legislators to raise the legal minimum age to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raising the minimum age to 16-18 years by 1920.


>You are an utterly idiot shithole and only the internet and the modern law is what defend you from us to massacre the monsters like you.

Your police is what protects you. Once upon a time people like myself would have banded together and murdered pro-women's rights people like yourself.

Girls were the only thing good in a man's life and many men were not going to let that one pleasure go.

Then consumer comforts and police came.

That's why you live while you have something men want and you won't give it up: in most times that means you were dead and robbed.

Deuteronomy wisely councils you to give up the goods for what purpose they are designed to serve.


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 05:05:21 [Preview] No. 4938 del
Supposedly you're wrong and the taking of a girl was permitted if she didn't cry out. (then you would pay the father, and would be punished by never being able to divorce her) If she did, it becomes rape and the guy gets killed.

What say you to this?


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 05:09:47 [Preview] No. 4939 del
>>4938
I don't read Hebrew despite my dad being a huge (messianic) jewophile who almost moved the family to Israel. So I don't view it as my place to care.


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 05:21:50 [Preview] No. 4940 del
I'm a libertarian. Consent is everything. As to what age one can consent can be given is always arbitrarily decided by society. In my opinion a legal minor should be unable to consent to anything. According to this the age of majority should be much younger than it is currently and/0r the owner of the child should be able to transfer ownership to another.

So it would be permitted to exchange ones daughters with ones friends. Or even keep ones own daughter, until she is able to legally leave you at majority.

Personally this is a good way for me to rationalize what I view as abuse on the part of my parents. If I would have the same absolute power over body and spirit of my children as they had over me. It balances, and balance is the essence of Justice as illustrated by the scales.


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 09:46:27 [Preview] No. 4944 del
>>4938
>Supposedly you're wrong and the taking of a girl was permitted if she didn't cry out. (then you would pay the father, and would be punished by never being able to divorce her) If she did, it becomes rape and the guy gets killed.

>What say you to this?

You are fucking wrong and would know it if you had any ability to read.

They are two different laws.

Fucking retarded ignorant fucks who can't even understand the written word.

GO READ THE FUCKING PASSAGES.

The one I am talking of is Deuteronomy chapter 22, verse 28-29.

If a man finds a girl (yes girl, child, from infancy till adolescence), who is in her father's house (this is taken to mean a virgin), who has not been given away/promised (not married/betrothed allready), and he rapes her, then he shall pay her father 50 silver, she'll be his woman, and he will keep the girl all his days and not send her away.

(The man, ofcourse, may have many females if he wishes, hebrew is different than your english ideas)

Rape of child == pay father and keep her. Like in afghanistan.

NO MENTION OF CRYING OUT YOU FUCKING RETARD. That is a DIFFRENT Law, so NO, again I am NOT wrong. (Ofcourse you will NEVER accept this).

There is another law, earlier, that if a man rapes a married woman in a city and she doesn't cry out, they both are killed.

Diffrent law dumbass.

After that law is another part: if the married woman is instead in the country side then only the man is killed (as no one would know if the woman cried out or not).

Again DIFFRENT LAW DUMBASS (would couldn't be bothered to fucking read the passages, even though they're like a sentence each)

Then comes the law on virgin female children, and if you READ THE HEBREW, it's clear we're talking about female children now, no longer married women.


>Supposedly you're wrong and the taking of a girl was permitted if she didn't cry out. (then you would pay the father, and would be punished by never being able to divorce her) If she did, it becomes rape and the guy gets killed.

>What say you to this?

I say how about you shut the fuck up and learn to read like 5 sentences. Not hard!


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 09:50:46 [Preview] No. 4945 del
Here, some easy english translation: note: to really get the full info you must study the hebrew: it is there you CLEARLY learn that 22:28-29 is about girls (from infancy till adolecence), while it is not often clear in the english translation. Translators have their audience and christian women in kansas absolutly hate pedophiles because every woman who professes to follow christ is a feminist today.
------------------------

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

30 A man is not to marry his father’s wife; he must not dishonor his father’s bed.[b]


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 09:54:56 [Preview] No. 4946 del
>>4940

The world works as such:

There are assets. People want them. Other people do not want them to have them.

If you want the assets you must defeat those who wish you a pauper.

In the end you must kill them.

Men will never have freedom without the death of their enemies. These things go hand in hand: like a mushroom on a stump.


Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 10:01:35 [Preview] No. 4947 del
There's a clear exposition of the common goy and the jew in this thread.

Behold the common goy:
>>4938
>Supposedly you're wrong and the taking of a girl was permitted if she didn't cry out. (then you would pay the father, and would be punished by never being able to divorce her) If she did, it becomes rape and the guy gets killed.

>What say you to this?

Couldn't read 2 sentences to see if his supposition was correct.

The Jew:
>> 4757
>
>Interesting read. Bible study guy had some good points, you had some good points. Your arguments are good, but your method of discourse is bad.
>
>I like girls over the age of 20, (women), and under no circumstances would I do anything sexual to a little girl. And if someone tried to come into my house to rape my daughter, they wouldn't get to pay me 50 shekles.
>
>However this is what the verse says, I checked my JPS Jewish Tanakh, and there it is in black and white.


Again, common anti-pedo goy:
>>4938
>Supposedly you're wrong and the

Key word is supposedly, the goy could have looked it up, and read 2 whole sentances, and 5 if he wanted to see the surroundings.

The Jew:
>However this is what the verse says, I checked my JPS Jewish Tanakh, and there it is in black and white.

Bothered to look it up.

Notice how the Jew doesn't then try to twist the words and argue endlessly, unlike goy christians who will say night is day to the point that you have to bury them in 80 citations about what a hebrew word actually means, then the goy christian, dumb and stubborn as an ass, will just call you a Jew of satan.


Full disclosure: I'm a goy, but atleast I can see young girls for what they are. ... many are quite nice, and very QT.

PS: I also can read and look things up: something many other goys absolutely hate.


NOW WITH MORE HEBREW! Anonymous 06/10/2016 (Fri) 20:46:28 [Preview] No. 4960 del
(7.22 MB 920x518 religionofpeace.webm)
/tech/ - Torah exegesis


Anonymous 06/11/2016 (Sat) 01:36:16 [Preview] No. 4965 del
>>4960

Can't refute, make fun!

Just pointing out what the hebrew words say... really isn't much of exegesis.

exegesis, today, is usually trying to twist the works into a pro-woman's rights, kill men, etc grotesque form of what was written. Christians are really good at this. Especially in America, though Russia does the same (KILL ALL PEDOS, RAH RAH PROTEKT WIMMIN!!! KILL MAAALES!!)


Anonymous 06/11/2016 (Sat) 09:09:23 [Preview] No. 4972 del
>>4965

>Can't refute, make fun!

I have no interest in refuting your kike Bible study, and I didn't read it.

This is /tech/. Get a fucking clue, autist.


Anonymous 06/11/2016 (Sat) 11:41:25 [Preview] No. 4975 del
>>4972

What /tech/ things do you do?
I code for video game in freedom, amongst other things.

You? Nothing.


Anonymous 06/11/2016 (Sat) 11:43:26 [Preview] No. 4976 del
>>4972
>This is /tech/. Get a fucking clue, autist.

No, this is /tech/grsecurity/

In every grsecurity thread, be it 8ch, thischan, 4chan, we discuss Deuteronomy 22, 28-29 and taking young girls as brides.

Every one. It is very relevant to /grsecurity/ general.


Anonymous 06/11/2016 (Sat) 23:36:49 [Preview] No. 5005 del
>>4972
>kike Bible study
While I don't believe you meant it that way due to your likely lack of knowledge of the origin of the term "kike", that's a strangely appropriate description of (((anons))) intentions.


Anonymous 06/12/2016 (Sun) 18:47:16 [Preview] No. 5037 del
>>4975

You don't know what I do, and nobody cares about your shitty Nexuiz fork, fake lawyer.

kys


Anonymous 06/13/2016 (Mon) 04:24:21 [Preview] No. 5052 del
Grsecurity, what is it?


Anonymous 06/13/2016 (Mon) 04:26:38 [Preview] No. 5053 del
>>5037

>You don't know what I do, and nobody cares about your shitty Nexuiz fork, fake lawyer.

Except for the 11000 people who downloaded the 4gb ISO.

>>5037
>You don't know what I do,

How can one "know what" you "do" when you do nothing?


Makise Kurisu 06/13/2016 (Mon) 22:40:54 [Preview] No. 5077 del
>>4976
based


Anonymous 06/15/2016 (Wed) 07:56:26 [Preview] No. 5146 del
Why does linux suck without grsecurity?


TP~* 06/16/2016 (Thu) 23:26:38 [Preview] No. 5220 del
Some of you don't know it.

Full integration of Pax/GRsecurity in Android Copperhead OS for Nexus smartphones since 2015

https://copperhead.co/blog/2015/06/11/android-pax


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 01:22:52 [Preview] No. 5222 del
Why are the linux devs such faggots to the grsec guy?

Why can't the linux devs into security either?


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 03:36:42 [Preview] No. 5224 del
>>5222
because they're fagottinis


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 04:35:04 [Preview] No. 5225 del
>>5224

But why?


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 04:36:12 [Preview] No. 5226 del
>>5225
because fagottinis are better than spaghetti


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 07:30:11 [Preview] No. 5227 del
>>4901

Hey have you emailed Linus Torvalds about this controversy yet?

Remember to tell him that you want to rape his 3 daughters and pay him 50 sheckles and take them as your brides. Post results back here.

I want to hear his opinion on that.


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 07:54:53 [Preview] No. 5228 del
(73.09 KB 1246x720 1455169173538.jpg)
>>5227

At least 2 of Linus' daughters aren't small children anymore, so Mikee would have no interest in them.


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 08:04:32 [Preview] No. 5229 del
>>5228
I think the point is that he would PROBABLY be cucked from using le linux kernel once he gets Linus' response and would move to Unix shit which isn't as "free" as he wants it to be, or he would move to the HURD kernel or some fork of the linux kernel ironically because of his inane morals


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 15:00:25 [Preview] No. 5256 del
>>5228
Not pretty either (linus' daughter).

He married a fat as hell woman, and she was fat when he got with her.

Why did he just throw his life away? I mean slaving away at an engineering project for free is one thing.


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 15:04:38 [Preview] No. 5257 del
>Remember to tell him that you want to rape his 3 daughters and pay him 50 sheckles and take them as your brides. Post results back here.

Only a blind man would do that.

I think the point is that he would PROBABLY be cucked from using le linux kernel once he gets Linus' response and would move to Unix shit which isn't as "free" as he wants it to be, or he would move to the HURD kernel or some fork of the linux kernel ironically because of his inane morals

You're retarded. Makes NO sence.
"Derrr duuhh maayne daat invventteed DUUHHH hammer I duuuuhnnnt agree withhhh, so i neeevaaa uussee duuuuuHHHHHHH hammer!!!"

Do you think I am a fucking retard that would reject a technology because I supposedly don't like the opinions of someone who was involved in creating it? That I would cut off my own nose to spite my face?

Fuck You. I hope one day I meet you and am able to slay you without consequence you fucking piece of shit.

Also Marry QT girl children.
Kill feminists.

--
Remeber: opposing men taking young female children as brides is a death sentence: (Dt 13:6 hebrew) (elohim means judges/rulers/gods/etc)

Men are permitted to rape2own female children: (Dt 22:28-29 hebrew)

Enticing others to follow something else is a death sentence: (Dt 13:6 hebrew)

That means it is our duty to kill the feminists / stormcucks / whiteknightnationalists in europe and other areas who oppose man+girl.


Anonymous 06/17/2016 (Fri) 15:07:43 [Preview] No. 5258 del
>> 5229
>I think the point is that he would PROBABLY be cucked from using le linux kernel once he gets Linus' response and would move to Unix shit which isn't as "free" as he wants it to be, or he would move to the HURD kernel or some fork of the linux kernel ironically because of his inane morals

Yea you got it all FIGURED out, genius.


Anonymous 06/18/2016 (Sat) 05:07:41 [Preview] No. 5292 del
>>5257
Yes I think you're that pathetic for in one hand, you hate grsec but in another, uses a kernel whose benevolent dictator hates people just like you, so it leaves you vulnerable to attacks in the kernel level. Religion and software has nothing to do with each other, but because you are cucked by muslims, you insist it has some correlation with each other while lying over and over that you're by any means a lawyer. You're so butthurt, you can't even quote posts and greentext correctly. kys, double nigger.


Anonymous 06/18/2016 (Sat) 10:56:28 [Preview] No. 5304 del
>>5229
>I think the point is that he would PROBABLY be cucked from using le linux kernel once he gets Linus' response and would move to Unix shit which isn't as "free" as he wants it to be, or he would move to the HURD kernel or some fork of the linux kernel ironically because of his inane morals


Lets say someone disliked what you believed, so they killed you, killed "your" wife (really she owns you these days), and then held down and raped your female children, and then took your land, and spent your money.

Would I be like "hol up, hol up, dey-is niggaz you hatez money, u cant use shit from niggaz you hate!"
???

Or would I be like "ride on your enemiez!" --Tupac.

???

Which makes more sence you fucking retarded piece of fucking shit.


Anonymous 06/18/2016 (Sat) 11:00:58 [Preview] No. 5305 del
>>5292
>you hate grsec

I love grsecurity.

>uses a kernel whose benevolent dictator hates people just like you

I also use the land of people who hate people just like me. Where I lay, first came massacres of those who once inhabited here.

>Religion and software has nothing to do with each other,

Religion is the first software.
With your brain on X Religion you act in C way. With your brain on Z Religion you act in E way. Etc.

>but because you are cucked by muslims,

Muslims are wonderful.
I love it when they murder feminists, those seeking to end girl-child marraige, etc.
I thank the God of Deuteronomy that muslims exist and are, to a great deal, keeping His laws.


Anonymous 06/19/2016 (Sun) 06:49:22 [Preview] No. 5328 del
Holy fuck I knew it

Endchaners also browse librechan

Pretty sure if any male had a 10/10 qt daughter he would fug and luv her


Anonymous 06/19/2016 (Sun) 22:48:11 [Preview] No. 5337 del
>>5328
This is just one guy. He might use Librechan. If not, maybe he should.

Mikee, try this site:
https://librechan.net/tech/


Anonymous 06/20/2016 (Mon) 08:07:28 [Preview] No. 5369 del
Linus is pathetic:
Married a whale.
Daughters not good looking.
Lets lennart fuck up his OS.
"Security is a meme" attitude.


Anonymous 06/20/2016 (Mon) 08:19:49 [Preview] No. 5374 del
When there are backdoors in the CPU,
there is nothing you can do.

Security is a meme-- linus has it right.


Anonymous 06/20/2016 (Mon) 08:28:13 [Preview] No. 5375 del
http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/605120.html#614964

> >mikeeUSA the SJW still mad no one has claims except for the vendors recieving the patches
>
>wew lad
>
>go back to tumblr, SJW

>>614964

when you treat an agreement in bad faith the law will not allow you to then seek protection under that agreement.

GRSecurity has no right to modify the linux kernel absent and agreement, nor distribute derivative works based on it, absent an agreement.

GRSecurity has treated the agreement which allows it to modify the linux kernel and distribute derivative works based on the linux kernel in bad faith as it has also sought to nullify a clause within the agreement that ensures the same rights to sublicensees.

Without protection of the agreement the linux developers have a copyright claim against GRSecurity. GRSecurity's only hope is the cover the agreement gives it; an agreement which it has treated in bad faith and thus would not be given effect by the courts.

It is _VERY_ simple: there are claims on _BOTH_ sides of GRSecurity. However since the Linux kernel devs just seem to hate grsec, and think it's garbage...


Anonymous 06/20/2016 (Mon) 08:56:42 [Preview] No. 5376 del
How pathetic a nigga gotta be to spam a half dead chan?


Questions TP~* 06/22/2016 (Wed) 02:02:53 [Preview] No. 5443 del
>Security is a meme-- linus has it right.

Million thoughts here about security.

Question A

How do you attack my second air gapped Offline laptop? IBM T60

You need physical access and if my laptop is in your hand you have to fight against the mathematics of modern cryptography: DOUBLE full disk encryption.

SED hardware with Pre-Boot Authentication 1 + VeraCrypt software Pre-Boot Authentication 2

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-encrypting_device

I never use a "normal" HDD - always SED

https://veracrypt.codeplex.com/

How do you attack my second Offline laptop without a network + bluetooth card?

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/IBM+Thinkpad+T60+Wireless+Card+Replacement/13018

?

My IBM T60 is in a special corner. Far away from all windows, doors, mirrors. NSA telephoto see nothing.

I have special glasses with ZERO reflections. The NSA cant see my content with a zoom into my glasses.

The loudspeakers and microphone don't work.

I wrote a .exe with an unstoppable shutdown. In 1 second - BOOOOM - nothing can interrupt the shutdown.

The FBI cannot storm a flat in 1 second.


TP~* 06/22/2016 (Wed) 03:08:12 [Preview] No. 5445 del
Question B

WHO srsly who in this world can break this security chain?

Tails OS > external Linux firewall / router ( VPN client inside the router ) > Tor > www / .onion

OR

Tails OS > security oriented ROUTER with VPN client > VPN > Tor > CGI_Proxy > www

http://jalinan.tk/index.pl/en/

With this you end also Tor Block from Google or Cloudflare

http://jalinan.tk/index.pl/en/00/http/www.google.co.uk/

They see now a proxy not a Tor IP


TP~* 06/22/2016 (Wed) 03:16:39 [Preview] No. 5446 del
Wait this is a better help.

You > real IP > VPN > IP from your VPN > Tor > IP from one Tor ExitNode > CGI_Proxy > IP from the CGI_Proxy > www

Could some "motherfucker" here explain me how do you ATTACK this security bomb?


Anonymous 06/22/2016 (Wed) 15:11:45 [Preview] No. 5453 del
BUMP!!!!


Anonymous 06/22/2016 (Wed) 15:19:05 [Preview] No. 5454 del
>>5443

Wait until your T60 breaks and you have to buy something newer.

Or just put you in prison for being a MMMAMAMAAAALLLLLLEEEEEEE


TP~* 06/23/2016 (Thu) 08:39:28 [Preview] No. 5474 del
>Wait until your T60 breaks and you have to buy something newer.

Your are right. A real problem.

Lenovo business laptop 2015:

Bluetooth is always on. I cant deactivate it. Not a card and no setting in BIOS. If i shutdown my Lenovo pairing works.

Its better for me if i have a second older ThinkPad.

I should sell my new 2015 business Lenovo laptop.

Which ThinkPad is backdoor-free???

What about iMac and MacBooks??? Is Apple backdoor-free?


Anonymous 06/23/2016 (Thu) 15:32:31 [Preview] No. 5476 del
>>5474
>Is Apple backdoor-free?
It's time to stop posting


Anonymous 06/25/2016 (Sat) 17:35:40 [Preview] No. 5517 del
There is an additional stream down which the Linux rights holders could venture if they dislike what Mr Spengler is doing, in addition to what was discussed above.
Here is a third way the Linux right's holders could come to a remedy (this was discussed at length a year ago, I was told that I "Didn't have a law degree" "was retarded" "is insane"
I would like to draw the attention of the detractors to this excerpt:

>"Notice that in a copyright dispute over a bare license, the plaintiff will almost certainy 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."
>p278 - Open Source Licensing - Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law - by Lawrence Rosen


Just as I said a year ago in the previous discussion (8chan /tech/).
I supposes Mr. Rosen "doesn't have a law degree" "is insane" etc also... *

Thus an additional remedy, for the Linux Rightsholders would be to simply revoke the license apropose to Mr. Spengler.
Then: no more right to modify linux, nor create derivative works. No right to even touch or alter the source code in any way.

>Since the GPL is intended by its authors to be a copyright license but not a contract,...
>p276 id

But ofcourse you say I am "insane and wrong" and have cited the previous discussion where I said they could simply revoke the license since the GPLv2 does not contain a no revocation clause.
Now then, you could try to claim the GPLv2 is governed under contract law (to dodge the bare license situation), and then in that case we have the full power of contract law on our side and can bring in: usage in trade, course of dealing, lack of full integration (GPLv2 is one page), etc.
Suffice to say: either spengler's license to modify linux can be revoked at will (barring estoppel) if he has permission as a license (property law), or extrinsic evidence that bears on the agreement (such as the intention of the parties, usage in trade of terms, course of dealings, etc) can be brought in to discover the full effect of the agreement (remeber: no integration clause here) since we would be proceeding under contract law (which is what you want if you want what linux is licensed under to be irrevokable). We can discover if all X contributors to linux intended derivative works to be closed in this manner, what the usage in trade was of these terms, what the course of dealings were vis a vis spengler and the linux rightsholders up till this time. Etc.

*
>Lawrence Rosen is an attorney specializing in technology and a computer professional who has taught programming and managed several computer departments at Stanford University. He is currently general counsel and secretary of Open Source Initiative (OSI), formerly served as its executive director, and has written several major open source licenses.


Have a good day.
--MikeeUSA--


Anonymous 06/26/2016 (Sun) 20:41:52 [Preview] No. 5537 del
http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/605120.html#q618736
>>618736
>How derivatives work is that you can't stop anyone from redistributing a derivative work of shit from before the license was revoked.

Once the license is revoked Mr Spengler can no-longer update GRSecurity. The business would be done at that point. Furthermore, any licensor in the chain of derivative works can revoke license to his copyright.

Linux is a long long long string of derivative works. It is not a joint work (there is no joint-copyright to linux).

>So here's the reality for you: you're a mentally ill roleplayer on an anime imageboard who thinks that his ramblings are affecting or changing anything. All of this is for naught.

I am a graduate of a law school and a person whom passed the bar. I also program libre vidya. What are you?

>Nothing you do will change the fact that there are no known GPL violations in this situation, and the fact that you will never be able to convince anyone, let alone a vast majority of Linux kernel developers, to revoke the license.

Since spengler is seeking to frustrate the purpose of the agreement; that is he is seeking and succeeding in defeating the free-redistribution clause, the courts will not allow him to seek cover under the document. He has treated it in bad faith and will not be able to, at the same time, cover under it.

It is very simple, and you do not once give a counter argument other than "nooo you're insane!!!". This shows you have no knowledge of the law: you've not studied it.

However since the GPLv2 lacks a no-revocation clause, the license could simply be revoked.
A majority is unnecessary as, as stated above, linux is not a work of joint copyright.

Secondly in US law the statutes are only the bare bones of the law. Everything is fleshed out via case law. You screaming "I linked the statute" means almost nothing. You do not know how to interpret it, and you ignore the courts interpretation anyhow. You claim linux is a work of joint-copyright when it clearly is not.


Anonymous 06/26/2016 (Sun) 20:46:29 [Preview] No. 5538 del
http://oxwugzccvk3dk6tj.onion/tech/res/605120.html#q618736
>>618736
I wonder why this piece of shit keeps coming back to argue? He's like a frothing-at-the-mouth dog. He's not studied in the law, yet assumes he knows any of the terms of art (the fact that he imagines that the Linux kernel is a work of joint-copyright just underlines this: he saw "joint" in the statute and just assumed that ment any work with more than one author contributing... lol).


Anonymous 06/27/2016 (Mon) 02:56:59 [Preview] No. 5551 del
>>5537

>I am a graduate of a law school and a person whom passed the bar.

see

>This is an anonymous imageboard that promotes ideas over identity.

Nobody cares about your pretend law degree.


Anonymous 07/03/2016 (Sun) 16:18:22 [Preview] No. 5727 del
>>5551

I will reiterate, you fucking piece of shit. You have no idea of what the law is. I do. You are not qualified to speak on it. You can't even interpret the statute you cite correctly because the terms of art therein are foreign to you. You FUCKING piece of shit.

>I am a graduate of a law school and a person whom passed the bar. I also program libre vidya. What are you?


Anonymous 07/04/2016 (Mon) 03:58:32 [Preview] No. 5743 del
>>5727

I have no idea who you think you're talking to. I realize that this is probably difficult for you to understand because of your autism and your mental problems, but there is more than one person on this imageboard.

Also, you are not a lawyer.

Kill yourself.


Anonymous 07/06/2016 (Wed) 17:32:11 [Preview] No. 5769 del
>>5743
>>5551

I will reiterate, again, you fucking mongoloid piece of shit. You have no idea of what the law is. I do. You are not qualified to speak on it. You can't even interpret the statute you cite correctly because the terms of art therein are foreign to you. You FUCKING piece of shit.

>I am a graduate of a law school and a person whom passed the bar. I also program libre vidya. What are you?


Anonymous 07/06/2016 (Wed) 17:43:03 [Preview] No. 5771 del
>>5769
>I will reiterate, yet again, you fucking mongoloid piece of shit. You have no idea of what the law is. I do. You are not qualified to speak on it. You can't even interpret the statute you cite correctly because the terms of art therein are foreign to you. You FUCKING piece of shit.

>I am a graduate of a law school and a person whom passed the bar. I also program libre vidya. What are you?


Anonymous 07/07/2016 (Thu) 11:32:08 [Preview] No. 5780 del
>>5769
you're most definitely not a lawyer


Anonymous 07/08/2016 (Fri) 07:05:51 [Preview] No. 5783 del
MikeeUSA more like KikeeUSA ahahahahahaahahahahahaha


Anonymous 07/09/2016 (Sat) 05:20:09 [Preview] No. 5790 del
(2.78 MB 5408x3336 1455409382412.jpg)
>>5783

Well, he IS obsessed with kike religious scriptures.


Anonymous 08/20/2016 (Sat) 16:51:27 [Preview] No. 6406 del
Best Thread.
Dead Chan.

1 - 0


Anonymous 02/07/2017 (Tue) 02:15:26 [Preview] No. 7954 del
>>4366
I think it would be a good idea for /tech/ to organize and a few get a monthly subscription. Then after a few cycles start releasing the patches, and if/when cut off these /tech/ users will have a case.


Anonymous 02/28/2017 (Tue) 18:04:10 [Preview] No. 8132 del
something something OpenBSD.

Linux is a lost cause.


Anonymous 02/28/2017 (Tue) 18:34:21 [Preview] No. 8133 del
Wow epic thread. I am not a root level nixer per se, but you guys make the best analogy for ending all law schools, all lawyer all greek frats, and starting from scratch. Thanks!


Anonymous 02/28/2017 (Tue) 18:37:10 [Preview] No. 8134 del
I mean this is so awesome I never expected a chan to have a epic thread about how fucked up the tech of "law" is in relation to humanity. Awesome work, especially you college lawyers, am so proud of you and all the courts, that you finally did end your own legitimacy right here in front of everyone.



Top | Return | Catalog | Post a reply