Story

Still not one legal counter argument presented! Just handwaves that even put in scare quotes the idea of revocation, something central and fundamental to the issuance of licenses in property law.

>So, again, your 'revocation' is fundamentally incompatible with the GPL. Nothing grsecurity is doing is violating the GPL, and your fantasy land 'revocation' would itself be a violation of the GPL.

"I, a lay techi faggot said so, and thus it is so, I don't need years of training in the law: I'm a genius, look at these square glasses!"

Why you're wrong has been stated above, you have yet to refute any of it with legal arguments. All you've done is cite press releases with no information, and a case that is not on-point at all (derrrr it be using duhh same lycennsue sooo derrrrrrr it must ddeeeuuuuuhhhhhh be speakin dUUUHHHH to eheheh dee same issueee EHHhhshsh) Yea, we get it, you're not a student of the law. You are just a lay piece of shit FUCK.

> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

The ability of a copyright holder to rescind a license is not a restriction on the recipient: it is a right, as of law, of the rights-holder. Secondly the You spoken of here is not the original copyright holder but the manufacturer of the derivative work or a intermediary recipient. A license is a grant from the rightsholder to others to use his property, this document is read as if the rightsholder was speaking it to you (or whomever the second party is). Basic stuff, obvious from the language.

As I said, no training in the law on your side, you're even citing things that do not help you at all since you do not understand their basis.

Sorry SJW piece of shit. You didn't go through law school, you don't even know the edges of the law, and you are wrong. You can believe the FSF all you want; they have an interest in hiding the truth. I'd be happy for your whole edifice to crumble as that would hurt you pro-women's rights, anti-marry-young-girls pieces of filth.

>I try not to put too much effort into arguing with the schizophrenic on anonymous imageboards, especially you MikeeUSA.

Not a legal argument you piece of shit. Not one. Just handwaves and insults. :)