Re: Revokist

Re: Revokist

[mikeeusa]

Lawsuits take money and alot of time, Jeff. No suit has yet been filed: 
why do you decree that an issue that is only a few months old is 
"settled"? You may have noticed that the Geek Feminists, as far as I 
know, have not chosen to re-post the work of authorship in question, nor 
do they, as far as I know, distribute it at all, post-revocation. Tell 
me, Jeff, what would they be sued for? Their license was revoked and 
they have not chosen to redistribute the work or make derivatives 
post-revocation.

There was no "attempt": the license _was_ revoked.
It seems you are ignorant of property law, Jeff, along with licensing 
and the differences between licenses and license contracts.


> Jeff Read on 2019-05-14 at 18:14:21 said:
> 
> My guess: none of it. I think most if not all of the revokist 
> shitposting being conducted here and on lkml has been mikeeUSA himself. 
> Note that when one of the revokist posts appears here, it often gets 
> sidetracked into ramblings about how men built open source and how an 
> adult man should be able to marry, rape, or rape and then marry a girl 
> as young as 12 or 13 per Biblical law. These are all mikee talking 
> points. Have been since 2005. They could be a really good faker, but I 
> doubt anyone would risk shitting up lkml with nonsense, trigger the 
> more senstive readers, or just act like an unprofessional ass if they 
> want to remain in good standing.
> 
> Besides, Mikee put his revokist theories to the test earlier this year, 
> by attempting to rescind modification and distribution rights under the 
> GPL from Geek Feminism wiki members to the only significant code 
> he\u2019s ever written: a shitty text mode slot machine game.
> 
> Nothing more to see here. Revokism is a failed revolution by a single 
> man \u2014 a man who has made no substantive contribution to open 
> source and who believes that God gave him the right to fuck kids.

Re: Revokist

[mikeeusa]

> Do you still want to open that can of worms, mikee?
Yes



> Jeff Read on 2019-05-20 at 11:10:59 said:
> 
> If the revokists are right, think of the implications: The maintainers 
> of Node.js, Go, Rust, or Linux may decide to apply their CoC to all 
> users of their software, and revoke the license to use the software 
> from persons or entities they deem to be violating, or at risk of 
> violating, the CoC. (That's the new hotness: preëmptive disciplinary 
> action against persons deemed to be "at risk" of CoC violations.)
> 
> Do you still want to open that can of worms, mikee? Because I don't 
> think things will turn out the way you hope they will.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8317