I'm sure you could care less. Indeed, you seem to care far too much that you're identified with certain viewpoints.
But that's a distraction. The Motherboard article provides zero fucking evidence whatsoever that this is anything to do with gamergate. You provide zero fucking evidence whatsoever.
It was obvious from the outset that the push for developers to rescind was a minority voice, and no surprise if it's a troll. I just don't see why the fuck you (or Motherboard, not that they have credibility either) need to bring in something entirely unrelated.
It goes against the IEEE code of ethics, the IETF/ISOC code of ethics, and the professional code of ethics covering engineers and computer scientists in many countries
What about causing a witch hunt against a man for using objective evaluation of data?
Just that, that one's already happened. Can we look forward to Sage Sharp being barred from the industry?
Nope. Unless we're talking software releases, but we're not.
crying about other people's code
nope
shrieking in rage at the idea that ostracism might ever be the correct course of action to take against someone
nope
denying any possibility of the idea that you might be the one with the problem.
I'm not the insane cunt calling people incels.
You're just throwing around pretty much every other identifying marker known to humanity
Nah. Just 'cunt'. I didn't even use that until you demonstrated its accuracy in describing you.
When you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and flock with the ducks
Given your libellous lies about me, I'm sure you can understand why I've had to use your own logic to very correctly call you a cunt.
Meanwhile you've failed utterly to find anybody on here that describes themselves as an incel; you just seem to like throwing the term around like a 10 year old that just learned the word motherfucker.
I read GPLv2. There's nothing in it saying that it can be withdrawn for reasons other than non-compliance.
Indeed, all I need to do if you rescind your licence from me is go to my git repository, pull out the code, see "licenced under GPLv2" and go, "Aha, I've just been granted a licence."
The GPL is a LICENSE that the developer GRANTS to the user. IT CAN BE REVOKED.
Section 8 of the GLP v3
..is totally fucking irrelevant, for two reasons: 1 - Linux is under GPLv2 not GPLv3 (or GLPv3) 2 - the clause to which you referred only applies in the event that you broke the terms of the licence
Now if the kernel legal team was doing its job, there would be some sort of agreement that if your code IS accepted you assign the rights to them thereby carving out a special niche just for them.
So lets stop using the word 'contribute' and use the word 'licence'.
Kernel contributors don't just contribute their code, they licence it under GPLv2. My reading of that (and apparently Stallman and his lawyer's) is that this licence is irrevocable.
Copyright in the code remains with its author, and they can licence it using other licences should they so choose. That does not remove, revoke, replace or in any other form invalidate the licence already granted under the GPL.
This is where your car analogy collapses. You don't contribute a car, you contribute an infinitely replicable copy of your car, the use and copying of which requires and impacts you not at all.
What if they do wish to participate. What if, like Theodore Ts'o, someone makes up some random shit about them?
Is it really ethical to deny him access to updating his own code, purely because some miserable cunt that doesn't know its own gender didn't like his perfectly reasonable suggestion to look beyond flawed statistics.
Shrug. I didn't make the claim you're challenging, I just found evidence for it. Your response of "I'm going to ignore your evidence because it annihilates my idiotic argument" doesn't make it imaginary.
But fuck it, you hate me anyway. I can handle that.
These days it's the opposite. I've lost count of how many genders people claim there actually are, and that doesn't include the attack helicopters.
Hell, most people would look at how I act, talk and look and assume I'm male. I'm nice, so I don't complain when they do this, but it's not the gender I'll be putting on my next job application.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure you could care less. Indeed, you seem to care far too much that you're identified with certain viewpoints.
But that's a distraction. The Motherboard article provides zero fucking evidence whatsoever that this is anything to do with gamergate. You provide zero fucking evidence whatsoever.
It was obvious from the outset that the push for developers to rescind was a minority voice, and no surprise if it's a troll. I just don't see why the fuck you (or Motherboard, not that they have credibility either) need to bring in something entirely unrelated.
Stop it. You're making yourself look silly.
Yeah, the original author retains copyright and can choose not to release any further updates under GPL.
Although that can get messy for kernel development. Nvidia ended up jumping through hoops to avoid GPLing their drivers.
Tell me more about the vacuum of space, and how it prevents heat radiation.
Include, if you could, how your explanation applies to that small yellow thing in the sky that blinds me when I look at it.
It goes against the IEEE code of ethics, the IETF/ISOC code of ethics, and the professional code of ethics covering engineers and computer scientists in many countries
What about causing a witch hunt against a man for using objective evaluation of data?
Just that, that one's already happened. Can we look forward to Sage Sharp being barred from the industry?
The CoC prevents people judging people for reasons other than merit
erm. The CoC explicitly requires people to judge people on everything except fucking merit.
Oh, their code gets a free pass. But no, some poor cunt went against the narrative, kick him out of kernel development.
Yes, Sage Sharp really fucked up all your arguments.
You're hating on women
nope
unironically calling people cucks
nope
using terms like "alpha" and "beta"
Nope. Unless we're talking software releases, but we're not.
crying about other people's code
nope
shrieking in rage at the idea that ostracism might ever be the correct course of action to take against someone
nope
denying any possibility of the idea that you might be the one with the problem.
I'm not the insane cunt calling people incels.
You're just throwing around pretty much every other identifying marker known to humanity
Nah. Just 'cunt'. I didn't even use that until you demonstrated its accuracy in describing you.
When you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and flock with the ducks
Given your libellous lies about me, I'm sure you can understand why I've had to use your own logic to very correctly call you a cunt.
Meanwhile you've failed utterly to find anybody on here that describes themselves as an incel; you just seem to like throwing the term around like a 10 year old that just learned the word motherfucker.
Grow the fuck up you miserable cunt.
I read GPLv2. There's nothing in it saying that it can be withdrawn for reasons other than non-compliance.
Indeed, all I need to do if you rescind your licence from me is go to my git repository, pull out the code, see "licenced under GPLv2" and go, "Aha, I've just been granted a licence."
It's kind of self-imposing.
If you rescind your licens
I think that's the contentious element here though. Can you rescind your licence?
This is just obnoxious gamergate folks grabbing at publicity where they can get it.
Do you have actual evidence of this or are you being alarmist for self promoting purposes?
I used to respect you but seriously, you talk some shit these days.
anything you contribute to a GPL2 code base ceases to be "yours" in any meaningful form
I read the fine print closely enough to know that it remains mine in every meaningful form.
It just also happens to be available to others under a fairly permissive licence.
The GPL is a LICENSE that the developer GRANTS to the user. IT CAN BE REVOKED.
Section 8 of the GLP v3
..is totally fucking irrelevant, for two reasons:
1 - Linux is under GPLv2 not GPLv3 (or GLPv3)
2 - the clause to which you referred only applies in the event that you broke the terms of the licence
Now if the kernel legal team was doing its job, there would be some sort of agreement that if your code IS accepted you assign the rights to them thereby carving out a special niche just for them.
Bollocks to that. A licence will suffice.
So lets stop using the word 'contribute' and use the word 'licence'.
Kernel contributors don't just contribute their code, they licence it under GPLv2. My reading of that (and apparently Stallman and his lawyer's) is that this licence is irrevocable.
Copyright in the code remains with its author, and they can licence it using other licences should they so choose. That does not remove, revoke, replace or in any other form invalidate the licence already granted under the GPL.
This is where your car analogy collapses. You don't contribute a car, you contribute an infinitely replicable copy of your car, the use and copying of which requires and impacts you not at all.
If someone no longer wishes to participate
What if they do wish to participate. What if, like Theodore Ts'o, someone makes up some random shit about them?
Is it really ethical to deny him access to updating his own code, purely because some miserable cunt that doesn't know its own gender didn't like his perfectly reasonable suggestion to look beyond flawed statistics.
Thought you were joking.
Shit. So did I.
GPLv2 allows me to change and republish v1 as v1.2, still under GPLv2 just as much as it allows me to copy it.
I don't think the licence can be revoked, but I am fairly sure it's an "all or nothing" job.
So either you can patch v1 or you can't use the damn thing in the first place.
No, but this is Slashdot and someone will be annoyed enough that I'm wrong that they'll post the correct definition in order to correct me.
It seemed quicker than using Google.
The only term I've used here is incels, and that's what you call yourselves
You keep claiming this. Who in this discussion has actually identified themselves using that label?
Over the top.
I'm not sure on the etymology. Now wondering if it's linked to the use of that phrase in WWI.
Shrug. I didn't make the claim you're challenging, I just found evidence for it. Your response of "I'm going to ignore your evidence because it annihilates my idiotic argument" doesn't make it imaginary.
But fuck it, you hate me anyway. I can handle that.
Then do your own fucking google searches, you're not worth more of my time.
$420 - get it, 420!
Umm. No. I don't get it.
Please explain?
I have, many times.
Hedgehog casualty rate: 0%
Not even an injury.
My friend's didn't sound its alarm until I put it back on its charger.
It was clearly distressed that I wasn't rescuing it from its life of pitiful slavery.
Hard to avoid recognizing the gender.
These days it's the opposite. I've lost count of how many genders people claim there actually are, and that doesn't include the attack helicopters.
Hell, most people would look at how I act, talk and look and assume I'm male. I'm nice, so I don't complain when they do this, but it's not the gender I'll be putting on my next job application.
Just fucking read the AC posts in this very thread.
Multiple posts demeaning people for being white and male.
But hey, Google has answers too.
https://goodmenproject.com/fea...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
https://broadly.vice.com/en_us...
How about all of those authors fuck off with their racist bullshit.