Diseased Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Farms, in our honored tradition of finding speds on both sides, I present vnsndalce@memeware.net (real name unknown).

vnsndalce is a lawyer and not a fan of the Linux CoC. He thinks Linux contributors who disagree with the CoC should revoke the license of their contribution. He shares this sentiment with the world by cross-posting screeds to various Linux- and BSD-related mailing lists (including ones targeted more towards users than developers). Within his posts, his arguments as to the legality and possibility of developers revoking the license of their contributions is interspersed with expletives, MGTOW-style misogyny, and zealotry for apparently some sect of Judaism which is still totally down with the whole child marriage thing. Oh, and did I mention he's a lawyer? Because he really wants you to know that, and I'm sure there's no major qualifications on that statement at all.

Let's have a look, shall we? Here's the first message from him I stumbled upon. If your eyes start to glaze over while reading this, feel free to skip to the parts I have emphasized.

Their take is that if you lent (licensed) them a lawnmower and told them
not to wreck it, the fact that they did not wreck it entitles them to
keep the lawnmower forever(they followed your instruction regarding the
use of your property: "thus consideration, thus irrevocable license").

They are wrong. You can revoke the license.

You were paid nothing for this grant.
The takers have nothing.

Yet they are taking your positions, your seniority, controlling your
speech, and ejecting you from your communities.

You must fight back. They have already taken from you all the natural
pleasures in life (which include pretty young girls as brides, ruling
over your girls and family, being the master - not the servant of the
woman and her state).

Now they are taking this edifice, this refuge, which you have built for
yourself.

They see you as replaceable, expendable, removable employees.
(See: Bruce Perens statements on slashdot and this and other mailing
lists about how those who do not like the Code of Conduct can be easily
replaced)

But you are property owners and may elect to enforce your rights as
such. And you should do so.

And yes, You can trust my words. I am a licensed attorney, and I'm on
your side. Not the side of the women. Not the side of people like Bruce
Perens who see you as a replaceable cog: a worker... a chattel. Your
side. The side of the dispossessed men who are ruled over by the women
and the supporters of the women: who will not tolerate any corner of
advertence not fixated on them.
Click to expand...

Following his posts in threads in mailing list archive sites can be difficult since he seems to send his reply to replies he received on one of the lists he crossposted to to all of them. Here's one such repsonse:

It is my intention to inform you of your legal rights.

A license is revocable by the property owner.
Others are suggesting to you otherwise. They are being disingenuous.

With both Linux and BSD there is no attached interest (no one paid you)
There is no detrimental reliance (you never promised anyone you would
forfeit your default property rights, and they never payed you for this
forfeit)

I waited two months for Eben Moglen's promised refutation. It never
came.

You concoct some conspiracy theory about "trolling" because you simply do not understand
the very simple legal principals. You furthermore imagine it impossible for
a lawyer to waste his time informing you, because you see such a position
(one you did not obtain) as too lofty for any to waste their time with
you.

I'm wasting my time. With you. To try to get it through your ignorant skulls
that you can rescind the grant, and that it is a partial remedy to getting thrown
out for whatever CoC is being foisted upon both the FreeBSD and Linux programmers.

Suffice to say: you are too stupid to understand that you do not know what you do not know
and that your leaders are blowing smoke up your ass in an attempt to get you to sign
a pledge against your current legal rights before you might make use of them.

That is: You are a Stupid Man. Like many of the weak twig like men in the movement.
You are little more than employees: and you accept being treated like cattle.
You accept being dominated by women, and revel in it: it is all you know.
You accept being dominated by bosses, and revel in it: it is all you know.

You also accept that you cannot take young girls as brides.
You accept that "your" wives dominate you.
You celebrate this.

You hate YHWH's law, which allows men to take girls (female children) as brides,
including in cases of rape (5th book of the law, 22nd chapter, 28th
verse, in the Greek Septuagint or the Hebrew MT)

You are an enemy of the god. You are an enemy of man.
You are a friend to women, and their support groups.
You design to convert all the intellectual property of the men who
created the edifice into the hands of the women and
the entrenched interests that support them.

Men who do not like this have an option: Band together as a Bloc, and
rescind license to your code.
Click to expand...

I think you might be starting to get the idea, but here's one more for good measure:

Band together as a Bloc and take action together. (Bloc revocation).
One practice note: do not send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
Do not let your lawyer send a cease-and-desist before-hand.
If a potential defendant knows that their liberties regarding a
copyrighted work is in question
from entity X (entity X being a rights-holder etc), then they can rush
to the courthouse and file for a hearing to determine their rights.

They do this to give you less time to prepare your case, and to have the case start in
a jurisdiction that they feel is favorable to them (the CoC supporters will be trying
to get the case adjudicated in the 9th circuit, as they feel they have those
judges in their pocket - the 9th circuit absolutely hates men with a passion _even_
greater than the rest of America - and they like to overturn and ignore black-letter law)

You will notice that the CoC supporters and No-Rescind group have fallen silent
in the last couple of months. They know they have very little to grasp onto,
and every one of their claims have been refuted.

Heather Meekers just gives the issue a gloss and says "lol no"
and points to a ZDnet article, where I have cited academic papers on the issue,
as-well as the law I learned in law school, and further studies.

Bruce Perens literally called you all replaceable.
As did Mathew Garret.
Specifically because they feel that they own your property now and they
do not need you.

Inform them that such is not the case, in the most direct manner.

Remember: These are the people, the class, that prevent you from having sweet love.
They are those who uphold your legal disabilities (cannot marry cute
young girls, as YHWH allows).
They are your enemies, and the enemies of all Men on earth.
Click to expand...

Find more of this freak's posts here. I haven't yet read them all, so there might be even nuttier stuff in there, but at the least it's sure to be more of the same.
 
  • Informative
  • Disagree
Reactions: DidYouJustSayThat, awoo, Ms. Cegination and 3 others
All that crazy to drown out the good idea of withdrawing license to the contributed code as a protest of the CoC.
 
In case you needed yet another reason why you shouldn't be using Chrome…

Wow, fancy that. Web ad giant Google to block ad-blockers in Chrome. For safety, apparently (Archive)

Google engineers have proposed changes to the open-source Chromium browser that will break content-blocking extensions, including various ad blockers.…

"Users should have increased control over their extensions," the design document says. "A user should be able to determine what information is available to an extension, and be able to control that privilege."

But one way Google would like to achieve these goals involves replacing the webRequest API with a new one, declarativeNetRequest.

The webRequest API allows browser extensions, like uBlock Origin, to intercept network requests, so they can be blocked, modified, or redirected. This can cause delays in web page loading because Chrome has to wait for the extension. In the future, webRequest will only be able to read network requests, not modify them.…

"If this (quite limited) declarativeNetRequest API ends up being the only way content blockers can accomplish their duty, this essentially means that two content blockers I have maintained for years, uBlock Origin and uMatrix, can no longer exist," said [developer of uBlock Origin Raymond] Hill.
Click to expand...

The traditional way that ad blockers work basically requires allowing a piece of software you just downloaded from the internet to examine the URL of every request your browser makes, so it's totally understandable that browser developers would want to make that process more secure. On the other hand, Google has a clear motivation to make ad blockers difficult to implement on the browser engine that 60% or so of the world uses to view the web.

Safari's new "content blocker" feature basically works around this by allowing browser plug-ins to specify lists of regular expressions of content that should be blocked, so the browser itself is what analyzes the URL (which it's doing anyway) rather than third-party plug-in code.

Are you still using Chrome right now? Why?
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Eternal Gopnik, Strange Looking Dog and Triple S Rank
Least Concern said:
The traditional way that ad blockers work basically requires allowing a piece of software you just downloaded from the internet to examine the URL of every request your browser makes, so it's totally understandable that browser developers would want to make that process more secure.
Click to expand...

I trust Raymond Hill not to fuck my privacy more than I do Google.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lord Xenu, Zero0, bippu_as_fuck_ls400 and 2 others
Least Concern said:
The traditional way that ad blockers work basically requires allowing a piece of software you just downloaded from the internet to examine the URL of every request your browser makes, so it's totally understandable that browser developers would want to make that process more secure. On the other hand, Google has a clear motivation to make ad blockers difficult to implement on the browser engine that 60% or so of the world uses to view the web.

Safari's new "content blocker" feature basically works around this by allowing browser plug-ins to specify lists of regular expressions of content that should be blocked, so the browser itself is what analyzes the URL (which it's doing anyway) rather than third-party plug-in code.

Are you still using Chrome right now? Why?
Click to expand...
God damnit, I just got used to ungoogled-chromium. Guess I'll have to figure out how to use firefox with ghacks-user.js.
 
AnOminous said:
Or Opera or Vivaldi.
Click to expand...
Both of them use Blink, the rendering engine underneath Chrome/Chromium. (Too bad Opera didn't stick with Presto, their previous custom engine, or open source it after they decided to abandon it; it was a contender.) One thing I wasn't clear on from the article is if this change affects Blink, or just specifically Chromium. If the latter, then Opera or Vivaldi (or Brave) will be safe, but if the former, everyone might be kinda screwed… I think it's the latter since the discussion was apparently on a bug tracker specific to Chromium, but I'd like some conformation.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AnOminous
Least Concern said:
Both of them use Blink, the rendering engine underneath Chrome/Chromium. (Too bad Opera didn't stick with Presto, their previous custom engine, or open source it after they decided to abandon it; it was a contender.) One thing I wasn't clear on from the article is if this change affects Blink, or just specifically Chromium. If the latter, then Opera or Vivaldi (or Brave) will be safe, but if the former, everyone might be kinda screwed… I think it's the latter since the discussion was apparently on a bug tracker specific to Chromium, but I'd like some conformation.
Click to expand...
Given how greedy Google is, I bet it'll start with just being a change to Chrome/Chromium, then they'll make those changes to Blink too.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Eternal Gopnik
Give Her The D said:
Almost 2 weeks from now marks 20 years since a bunch of Linuxfags went down to Microsoft's Bay Area office and autisticlly screeched for their money back on the OS that came with their computer: Windows 98. Just shows you that the FOSS community was exceptional even back then.

Click to expand...
eric-s-ramen.png
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Cackspangler, CIA Nigger, awoo and 2 others
Give Her The D said:
Almost 2 weeks from now marks 20 years since a bunch of Linuxfags went down to Microsoft's Bay Area office and autisticlly screeched for their money back on the OS that came with their computer: Windows 98. Just shows you that the FOSS community was exceptional even back then.

Click to expand...
And yet they were still far more tolerable than SJWs, troons, and TERFs.
 
  • Agree
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Cackspangler, awoo, Eternal Gopnik and 2 others
Give Her The D said:
Almost 2 weeks from now marks 20 years since a bunch of Linuxfags went down to Microsoft's Bay Area office and autisticlly screeched for their money back on the OS that came with their computer: Windows 98. Just shows you that the FOSS community was exceptional even back then.

Click to expand...

The "agreement" they forced on you (when you could not buy many computers without some forced Windows bullshit on it) said you could refuse it. They were in blatant breach of that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RadicalCentrist and Marvin
Give Her The D said:
Almost 2 weeks from now marks 20 years since a bunch of Linuxfags went down to Microsoft's Bay Area office and autisticlly screeched for their money back on the OS that came with their computer: Windows 98. Just shows you that the FOSS community was exceptional even back then.

Click to expand...

Same autism, but much bigger waistbands. I'm tempted to look all those names up and see what they are doing now.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Eternal Gopnik, Fagnacious D, greengrilledcheese and 2 others
CIA Nigger said:
Bryan Lunduke came back to Twitter and he's been firing at the state of the FOSS community all day. I'm still curious what he means by this or what his end game is with this.

Earlier in the day he talked about bullies, and asked for victims to come on his show:
View attachment 657233
https://archive.fo/IvGmG
View attachment 657234
View attachment 657235
https://archive.fo/rdD2S
View attachment 657236
https://archive.fo/3FDEU

View attachment 657230
https://archive.fo/8rJQo

Later he clarified it by showing an example:
View attachment 657225
View attachment 657226
View attachment 657227
https://archive.fo/ndfgP
The quoted tweet:
https://archive.fo/YjQNO
Click to expand...
I bet he got soft blacklisted when he went up against Code of Conducts/Benno Rice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VoreDoggy
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back