>>106505365Look dipshit: you are claiming that>DURRR EDITING IS CONSIDERATION FOR CONTRACT!No it is not:1) I didn't ask you to edit GPC-Slots22) I didn't accept any of your edits.There is no consideration here.All you have done is libeled me.I revoke the GPLv2 and GPLv3 and any other license for my copyrighted work: GPC-Slots2: from you. And I cancel any future license, any past license, any present license. GPC-Slots2 is not free-software for YOU.>>106505409>>106505387 (You)> where do you post your works?Souceforge> I am still confused by what your beef is.> So you made a program, and put it under GPLv2.> What are these other people doing with the code that you say is against the license?I have revoked the license of my feminist enemies: which I may do under US Law.They are not protected from revocation because they didn't pay me anything and thus do not have a copyright license contract.Any "promise" made in the GPL of any version is Illusory: just as any "promise" made in any other contract is non-binding before it is paid for (by money, or a promise to do something, or actually doing what was asked that wasn't required by law).Not infringing my copyright, which by default is "all rights reserved", is required by law>Pre-existing duty rule.Editing my code, using my program, etc is banned by law.It is only my permission that makes it "ok".However I have been given nothing for this permission, nor did I seek anything.So there is no contract between me and my feminist enemies.I have now recinded any permission my feminist enemies have had, and informed them of it.As what they "had" was a bare license.>344 F.3d 446, 451>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 451 (5th Cir. 2003).
You can't rescind the GPL.You are not a lawyer.Take your meds.
>I revoke the GPLv2 and GPLv3 and any other license for my copyrighted work: GPC-Slots2: from you. And I cancel any future license, any past license, any present license. GPC-Slots2 is not free-software for YOU.It's still here: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2/blob/master/LICENSEThis is also still here: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/ChaosEsque-Anthology/blob/main/code-of-conduct.md
>>106505539YES I CAN.IT IS MY FUCKING PROGRAM.YOU DID NOT PAY SHIT FOR IT.YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS TO IT.
>>106505556please just take your meds, you will feel better.
You signed over your copyright to FSF when you licensed with GPL.They should just IP ban you at this point. All you ever do is spam loads of nonsense and never respond to anyone in a relevant way that shows you've understood their post.>>106505556In terms of copyright, it is not your program anymore. It is the copyright of the FSF.
>>106505544That is warez, for you.
>>106505570wow, someone who is even more clueless than MikeeUSA
>>106505536Gemini's QRD for anyone not filled inhttps://g.co/gemini/share/b372e7ef7179
>>106505570>You signed over your copyright to FSF when you licensed with GPL.No I did NOT.I did not transfer the copyright.GPC-Slots2 is NOT an FSF project.It's my own personal project.>>106505570>In terms of copyright, it is not your program anymore. It is the copyright of the FSF.NO IT IS NOT.I never signed over the copyright to the FSF.I am the copyright holder.The license is from ME.NOT THE FSF.I have recinded it from YOU.
>>106505576The QRD is this >>106505539>>106505578Riichard Stallman owns your shit now.
>>106505578Just downloaded it again and I don't see how you're going to stop me.
ok ok whatever.BUTI'm still confused why you made a slots game in Perl?
Hey Mikee, I deleted your last thread :^)I'm going to delete this one too :^^^)
>>106505576>MikeeUSA insists his only legitimate project is on SourceForge. This is true of all software.
>>106505578You did tho
>>106505589>ok ok whatever.>BUT>I'm still confused why you made a slots game in Perl?I made one in C too.Thus I've Been a C programmer 24 years :)(I tell myself as the cool breeze rushes against my forehead)
why does he hate women
>>106505621search for "YHWH" in the archive
oh it it's a schizo? that's lameI thought this was a FOSS thread about something weird with licenses
lmao, this schizo is ghost postinghttps://desuarchive.org/g/search/text/yhwh/ghost/only/
>>106505636https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106504486#106504689>Girls are for sex: that is why they have a pussy.>You are a marcionite christian. You hate YHWH and his law. YHWH explicitly allows child brides.>YHWH made girls for men to fuck and ravage and rule over.>Which angers you.
>>106505621he can't breed
>>106505594> >>106505578 (You)>You did thoNo I did not.I kept the copyright, and I allowed others to download the program, with the GPLv2 license memorandum mentioned.That is not signing over the copyrights to the FSF.This is not an FSF project.This is a personal project: to which I retain all the copyrights.The GPLv2 memorandum, which is referenced: is simply bare non-bargained-for permissions which I elected, then, to allow others:It is not a copyright assignment.It is like if your friend said to you "you may use my lawnmower", and left the shed unlocked.You, white people, now say :>I own the lawnmower now.Which is not true.I am still the owner of GPC-Slots2.You are not. The FSF is not.What you are doing is criminally converting GPC-Slots2 to your property. Same as if you took the lawnmower: and then when your friend said "you may no longer use the lawnmower", you simply did not do so.That is a conversion.It has both criminal and civil penalties, for actual objects, and real property.Why it isn't a theft is because you had permission initially to enter the property and use the item.This is similar to what I allowed other people vs GPC-Slots2. However, now that I have been ridiculed and derided by specific individuals, and those individuals have impostered me, and they are adding feminist things to my software and claiming it is me that is doing that, and they are adding speech codes to my software, and claiming that is I who am doing that:I now rescind my permission to use my software in any way from those individuals and organizations (if there are any (geekfeminists)).Which is my right as the owner of the intellectual property.Libel is not "bargained for consideration", nor is false light, nor is conversion, nor is ridicule and derision. I never asked for anything. They and you have no copyright contract with me.
>>106505672so sue them, I doubt complaining on 4chan will help. Go to court. Otherwise you just seem like a whiny asshole.
>>106505672I revoke your ownership of gpc-slots2. I own it now.
>>106505621To be fair with the schizo, modern women make it hard not to
>>106505679Federal copyright lawsuits cost 500k minimum start to finish.I'll get a dollar out of them at most since 1) GPC-Slots2 was not registered through the copyright office prior to the revocation of the license from them.1b) Thus attorneys fees and statutory damages are not available.They have not used GPC-Slots2 to support a commercial endeavor: thus real damages would be 0.So only nominal damages (1 dollar) would likely be available.Unless the Judge felt very strongly infavor of copyright owners rights and revocation against non-paying parties; and gave punitive damages.Which is unlikely.After that I'd have to collect blood from a stone somehow.
>>106505536>arguing about FOSS licenses>implying that they actually do stuff
>>106505687That's essentially a conversion.It's done very often with software.(usually reskins).There's a real-player case where another app put some extra "things" ontop of real-player. The 2nd app was a seperate unrelated binary.The court found it infringing anyway.You simply deciding that GPC-Slots2 is "yours", would also be infringement. Since it removes my right to be known as the author of my works.Also all this claiming that you can do as you wish with my work grinds against the copyright owners exclusive right to control derivative works: which I did not sign away.
>>106505672Yah but you actually did tho
>>106505740I'm arguing they don't do anything.Since all promises made within them are Illusory.The copyright owner can always rescind.And the copyright owner is the one responsible for enforcing the license: which can only be done through a copyright lawsuit (or self help...).
>>106505761>The copyright owner can always rescind.wrongRobert JACOBSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Matthew KATZER and Kamind Associates, Inc. (doing business as KAM Industries), Defendants-Appellees.>Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where profit is not immediate. See Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir.2001) (Program creator "derived value from the distribution [under a public license] because he was able to improve his Software based on suggestions sent by end-users.... It is logical that as the Software improved, more end-users used his Software, thereby increasing [the programmer's] recognition in his profession and the likelihood that the Software would be improved even further.").
>>106505775Nonbinding dicta.You're not a lawyer.I am.
>>106505801No, you are not a lawyer. You are a schizo.Also, what happened? Did you take your meds?
>>106505775That was about the Artistic license and a commercial option license.Not the GPL.Try again "lawyer"
Hello, Mike. I loathe you so much, I am currently masturbating to your thread. I wish I was joking. But I'm not. I'll send you a video soon.Sincerely, your #1 hater.
MikeeUSA enjoys fellating men.
>>106505807I am a licensed attorney in the state of New York.Brooklyn circuit.You do not have rights to my software that I licensed freely for no consideration or remuneration of any kind.Which you have used to libel me, cast me in a false light as a "hypocritical feminist who adds Codes of Conducts to his projects" (I do not).
>>106505828Notice how the faggots must call their advarsaries what they are.Much like "white people" (Marcionite christians) claiming liking young girls is "gay".
>>106505824>Sincerely, your #1 hater.I have no enemies.
>>106505824 >Sincerely, your #1 hater.I hated your mother before you were born.
>>106505835The code of conduct is right here though: https://github.com/MikeeUSA/ChaosEsque-Anthology/blob/main/code-of-conduct.mdWhy did you add it? Are you a feminist? Are you pro trans rights?
>>106505861>>106505872Sure thing, Mike.
>>106505835Post credentials (obviously censor out important details, since you're probably too stupid to do that)
