Why is no one discussing this anymore?

Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[vsnsdualce]

Why is no one discussing this anymore.

It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from 
programmers.

Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by 
virtue of being "smarts"?

Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I 
do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a 
programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )

Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2, 
Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report 
on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong.

Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing.

It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades 
said: he's full of shit.

Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken.

The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one 
of them could shake the tree.

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[Bon Onlines]

Are you aware we are in the end of year holidays? I recommend you to
not call others as an idiot, as the only idiot here are you ;)

On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 9:31 PM <vsnsdualce@memeware.net> wrote:
>
> Why is no one discussing this anymore.
>
> It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from
> programmers.
>
> Are you idiots aware that programmers DO NOT KNOW THE LAW simply by
> virtue of being "smarts"?
>
> Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer, I have studied the law, and I
> do know more than the programmers on this issue (note: I'm also a
> programmer too... but for something useful... like games :) )
>
> Are you idiots aware that Eben Moglen (drafter of the GPLv3 (not 2,
> Linux is under 2)) has NOT made good on his pledge to publish a report
> on how I'm wrong and let me "correct" him where he got it wrong.
>
> Why do you think that is? That in 2 months nothing.
>
> It's because, as a relative who's worked in the field for many decades
> said: he's full of shit.
>
> Anything he publishes would just undermine the stance he's taken.
>
> The license IS recindable at the will of the 1000s of grantors. Any one
> of them could shake the tree.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[Theodore Y. Ts'o]

         +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.            
         |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:           
         |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:          
         |                   |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='          
         |   Thank you,      |              (  (_)  )             
         |       Management  |              /`-vvv-'\             
         +-------------------+             /         \            
                 |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \           
                 |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\          
   @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW          
   \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__           
    \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)          
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================


I recommend that people not respond to vsnsdualce@memeware.net,
visionsofalice@redchan.it, and in general, any e-mail coming from
domains served by the cock.li service (which comes from the IP address
185.100.85.212).  As you can tell if you go to its web page, this
mailer serves the following domains:

	cock.li, airmail.cc, 8chan.co, redchan.it, 420blaze.it,
	aaathats3as.com, cumallover.me, dicksinhisan.us,
	loves.dicksinhisan.us, wants.dicksinhisan.us, dicksinmyan.us,
	loves.dicksinmyan.us, wants.dicksinmyan.us, goat.si, horsefucker.org,
	national.shitposting.agency, nigge.rs, tfwno.gf, cock.lu, cock.email,
	firemail.cc, getbackinthe.kitchen, memeware.net, cocaine.ninja,
	waifu.club, rape.lol, and nuke.africa

This has been a public service announcement.

"Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig
likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore? - Attack the messaging rely, not the message!

[vsnsdualce]

Lieutenant Ts'o:
I see that you have adopted the strategy of "Attack the messaging 
service, not the message".

You cannot refute my arguments, you and yours simply claim "it's a lie", 
"it's BS!", "it's a troll".

The fact of the matter is: a license without an interest attached is 
revocable by the grantor.
That is: if you have not been paid to forgo your right to rescind, you 
still retain that right.

In the case of Linux or BSD: if entity X did not pay you, and did not 
reasonably rely on a promise not to rescind
(a promise you never made), you can rescind the license at any time.

This goes for all the 1000s of linux and BSD programmers who have not 
transferred their rights.

Yes I am a licensed attorney.
Yes my analysis is correct.
And yes I'm still waiting on Eben Moglen's promised counter-analysis 
(it's been 2 months)...
take a guess as to why.

On 2018-12-28 13:57, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> +-------------------+             .:\:\:/:/:.
>          |   PLEASE DO NOT   |            :.:\:\:/:/:.:
>          |  FEED THE TROLLS  |           :=.' -   - '.=:
>          |                   |           '=(\ 9   9 /)='
>          |   Thank you,      |              (  (_)  )
>          |       Management  |              /`-vvv-'\
>          +-------------------+             /         \
>                  |  |        @@@          / /|,,,,,|\ \
>                  |  |        @@@         /_//  /^\  \\_\
>    @x@@x@        |  |         |/         WW(  (   )  )WW
>    \||||/        |  |        \|           __\,,\ /,,/__
>     \||/         |  |         |          (______Y______)
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> ==================================================================
> 
> 
> I recommend that people not respond to vsnsdualce@memeware.net,
> visionsofalice@redchan.it, and in general, any e-mail coming from
> domains served by the cock.li service (which comes from the IP address
> 185.100.85.212).  As you can tell if you go to its web page, this
> mailer serves the following domains:
> 
> 	cock.li, airmail.cc, 8chan.co, redchan.it, 420blaze.it,
> 	aaathats3as.com, cumallover.me, dicksinhisan.us,
> 	loves.dicksinhisan.us, wants.dicksinhisan.us, dicksinmyan.us,
> 	loves.dicksinmyan.us, wants.dicksinmyan.us, goat.si, horsefucker.org,
> 	national.shitposting.agency, nigge.rs, tfwno.gf, cock.lu, cock.email,
> 	firemail.cc, getbackinthe.kitchen, memeware.net, cocaine.ninja,
> 	waifu.club, rape.lol, and nuke.africa
> 
> This has been a public service announcement.
> 
> "Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig
> likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[vsnsdualce]

Waiting quietly for two months for Eben Moglen's preliminary write-up 
(which I was to be sent to "correct") got me no-where. Every seems to 
have concluded that the issue is settled since there was no more public 
discussion.

All the "other side" said was "nuh-uh" and "you're not a lawyer" (false: 
I am) and "you deserve to be in prison , isn't practicing law without a 
license a crime!" (I have a license), and "I'm sure RMS would have made 
sure the license was not revocable" (he required everyone to sign over 
their copyright to his foundation... guess why...).

Along with "This Artistic License Case decided the AL was not a 
contract, it was simply a copyright license!! SO THERE!!" (AL is not the 
GPL... but... the finding in that case helps me, why are you citing 
it?).

(They wisely did not cite the printer driver case where the court looked 
at the offer to do (paying) business and decided that their was an offer 
and acceptance based on that other additional writing... since that one 
isn't on point at all except for the fact that one of the options in 
that writing was a choice of a GPL licensed work if you didn't want to 
pay a commercial fee. (The contract there was the other writing giving 
the option: Pay and get more rights, don't pay and here's the GPL), so 
at-least there's that.)

Being nice did nothing but harm the case of the truth in the eyes of the 
people however.

The guys on the DNG list (Steve Litt I believe) are the ones that want 
me jailed...

On 2018-12-27 20:37, Paul Stuffins wrote:
>> <snip>Are you idiots aware <snip>
> Insulting people is not the right way to get your point across!
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[Bernd Petrovitsch]

On 27/12/2018 21:30, vsnsdualce@memeware.net wrote:

Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.

> Why is no one discussing this anymore.

You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with
claims without any reproducible proof.
And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be
techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if
it goes in the other direction.

> It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from

"Proof by claim"? I don't think so ....

> Are you idiots [...]
>
> Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...]
> 
> Are you idiots [...]

Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for
(alleged) lawyers in your part of the world.

MfG,
	Bernd

PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam
    after all ...
-- 
Bernd Petrovitsch                  Email : bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at
                     LUGA : http://www.luga.at

Re: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[vsnsdualce]

> Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.
So where my logic cannot be attacked, my person may be instead?
Do you think me a fool, simply because you do not know what you do not 
know (the law), yet think you do (an attribute of many programmers: know 
one field, know them all!)?

I've explained the law again and again.

But here it goes:

Under the copyright statute, copyrighted works are alienable in all the 
ways property is.
You can sell, transfer, and license etc.

Copyright comes into existence the moment your work is placed in a fix 
form. The copyright is owned by the progenitor (you the programmer) 
until such time as you transfer it (ex: to an employee by way of 
employment agreement stating such terms), or you die (now your 
descendants own the rights), or you or your descendants elect to use the 
"claw-back" provisions in the US copyright act some decades after the 
work was fixed.

You, both BSD programmers, and Linux kernel programmers have elected to 
neither sell nor transfer in other ways your copyrights.
Instead you have chosen to license your works.

A license is a temporary grant.
Under property law it can be rescinded when the property owner wishes to 
do so.

Unless, the property owner has been payed to forgo that right.
That is: if the property owner has been payed by the licensee to promise 
that he will not rescind the license,
then if the property owner elects to rescind the license the court may 
estop the property owner from doing so
because the licensee has payed the owner FOR that right.

Equivalent exchange, if you will. (But the court does not look to if the 
consideration was... equivalent, just that there was an exchange of some 
consideration (read: money, goods, services) and a meeting of the minds 
(both parties ment to do this))

In the case of most linux and BSD licensees nothing has been payed by 
them to the programmers(you the copyright holders) to induce a 
forbearance of the underlying rights of the property owners.

Thus the original default rights still stand.
You can rescind at will.

Additionally, you have never promised that you would forego the 
utilization of your property rights,
so there is no promise anyone could reasonably rely upon to estop you 
from utilizing said rights.
Additionally, Licensee "E" did not pay you for that non-existent promise 
either.

You are not bound. You may rescind.

You now know why the FSF requires programmers to assign all copyrights 
to it.
You now know why Eben Moglen remains silent these last two months. I am 
correct, yes I am a lawyer, and yes anything he speaks further would 
simply show the weaknesses in his (magnanimously) taken position in 
trying to fool the Programmers into thinking they have forfeited rights 
they have not.

On 2018-12-27 21:53, Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
> On 27/12/2018 21:30, vsnsdualce@memeware.net wrote:
> 
> Real name pls, if want to be taken somewhat serious? Thank you.
> 
>> Why is no one discussing this anymore.
> 
> You don't discuss anything in the first place: You just spam mails with
> claims without any reproducible proof.
> And since we are here on a techie-list, said proofs should be
> techie-understandable - it's not that techies adjust to non-techies if
> it goes in the other direction.
> 
>> It's like you just accepted the "NU UH U WRONG" proclamation from
> 
> "Proof by claim"? I don't think so ....
> 
>> Are you idiots [...]
>> 
>> Are you idiots aware that I am a lawyer[...]
>> 
>> Are you idiots [...]
> 
> Interesting "qualities" of communication are apparently in order for
> (alleged) lawyers in your part of the world.
> 
> MfG,
> 	Bernd
> 
> PS: Sry for feeding the troll- won't happen anymore, it's only spam
>     after all ...

Re: FU: RE: Why is no one discussing this anymore?

[vsnsdualce]

I was addressing OpenBSD as-well, I chose the lists to CC to: linux 
lists and BSD, since the underlying concerns are the same.

It took slightly longer to find the appropriate openbsd list, infact, so 
you definitely weren't CC'd by accident.

On 2018-12-27 22:54, leo_tck@volny.cz wrote:
> zeur here.
> 
> I now[0] see that a whole bunch of lists were Cc'd, and while I'm not
> sorry for not preserving the Ccs, I realize that you might not have 
> been
> addressing us, misc@OpenBSD.org.
> 
> I still think my point holds, though. This should be a matter of great
> concern for OpenBSD, like it is to just about every other project
> relying on licensed code, "open" or not.
> 
>         --zeur.
> 
> [0] post-coffee-intake =)
> 
>> This whole discussion is best served elsewhere.