Scientists recently discovered a yet another critical vulnerability that affects the majority of the implementations of RLTP (the Reverse Lout Tsking Protocol). That vulnerability allows an attacker to gain the privileges of a dubber without being one herself. This is caused by the implementations not checking the post ID field and simply trusting the dubs field. RLTP is a very old protocol that carries a lot of deprecated and rarely used features of an older era, in addition to not not being webscale. Experts are advising to move to the newer PPP (the Penis Punischment Protocol, developed by the RedCream institute) but many of the older RLTP users refuse to make the change due to PPP's support for images.
RFC: 6503
REVERSE LOUT TSKING PROTOCOL
DERP INTERNET PROGRAM
PROTOCOL SPECIFICATION
September 1981
prepared for
tinychan /prog/ bulletin board system poastings Rude Lout Control Office /prog/ @ tinychan dis, tinychan, 00000
by
Information Sciences Institute University of Pumblenuts
September 1981
0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A B C D E F +-----+---------------+---------+-----------------------------+ | ver | request code | label | length | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-----+---------+-----------------------------+ |T|R|U|B|O|I|L|D|identification | sequence number | +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+---------------+---------------+-------------+ | thread ID | post ID | name | +-------------------------------+---------------+-------------+ | | = POASTINGS = | | +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | checksum | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
RLTP Header Format
Flags: T - tsk B - belligerent R - rude U - uncouth O - obtuse I - ill-mannered L - loutlike D - dubs
Name:
Anonymous2025-03-31 3:50
>herself Yea like cunt fucking bitches are attacking anything
Name:
Anonymous2025-04-13 5:05
Yes you can rescind opensource licenses. You owe nothing to free takers. You own your code. It is not a transfer, but permission, that can be ended.
Yes the opensource people are lying to you.
Name:
Anonymous2025-04-13 5:08
Notice how google "ai" cites reddit. And they are wrong. Yes I am a lawyer. Yes you can revoke opensource licenses from free-takers under US jurisprudence. No you do not Owe faggots anything.
---------------- AI Overview Learn more In general, open source licenses are perpetual and irrevocable, meaning they cannot be changed or revoked after they have been granted. This means the rights granted to users under an open source license remain in effect, even if the licensor later changes their mind or wants to make the project closed source. Elaboration:
Irrevocability: Once a license is granted, it's generally considered irrevocable, meaning the licensor cannot take back the rights they've given to others, according to a Reddit thread.
No retroactive changes: You cannot retroactively change the license of a project that has already been released under an open source license. This means if you released a project under the GPL, you cannot later decide to change the license to something else, says a contributor to Open Source Stack Exchange. Future releases: You can, however, change the license of future releases of your project. For example, if you initially released a project under the MIT license, you can choose to release a new version under a different license (like the GPL), according to Open Source Stack Exchange. Why it's important: The irrevocability of open source licenses is a core principle of open source development, according to a Reddit thread. It ensures that users can rely on the rights granted to them and that they are not subject to arbitrary changes to the license terms. Exceptions: There are some exceptions, such as licenses that explicitly allow for revocation or those that have a limited duration. However, these are relatively uncommon. Legal implications: Open source licenses are legally binding agreements. If you violate the terms of a license, you could face legal action and monetary damages.
Profile photo for Peeter P. Mõtsküla Peeter P. Mõtsküla visiting lecturer of IT Law at University of Tartu4y
Theoretically, yes. At least in some jurisdictions. But you should probably not try that.
The way open source works is that every recipient of an open-source work (a program, for example) gets automatically a license for it; the license text accompanies the work, no additional negotiations between the user and the copyright holder are necessary.
All open-source licenses I know are perpetual, i.e. they remain in force as long as the underlying copyright remains in force. Some licenses contain auto-revocation clauses triggered by the user’s breach of license terms. Other than that, the licenses do not foresee any grounds for revocation.
However, in some jurisdictions, all perpetual nonexclusive licenses can be revoked even if such possibility has not been foreseen in the license agreement. There’s a catch, though — the copyright holder must compensate the [now former] licensees for the damages caused by the revocation.
In any case, as long as the copyright holder has not informed the licensee of the revocation, the licensee can always claim having been acting in good faith. And no open source license contains provisions obligating the licensees to periodically check with the copyright holder if the license is still valid.
Of course the copyright holder may always cease the distribution of the work. And as long as the copyright holder has not accepted community contributions (or has accepted those on the basis of copyright assignment instead of co-licensing), he/she/it may then re-release the work under a different license. 1.7K viewsView 1 share
Name:
Anonymous2025-04-13 5:14
Profile photo for Earl Dingman Earl Dingman Former IT Specialist and Film Researcher (1979–2001)Author has 7.5K answers and 9.8M answer views · 4y
Good question. Under the rules of contract law if NO valuable consideration was passed and nothing was done and signed in writing, then it might be possible to revoke an open source license, but I wouldn’t think you need to give notice and you can’t expect to sue until after you serve a cease-and-desist notice, but that’s up to lawyers and courts to deal with.
Not sure what happens if you used that license in making a film or book. Once it’s out, it’s out. Profile photo for Dan L. Oom
Wrong, you can rescind the license grant as a copyright holder.
Name:
Anonymous2025-04-13 5:37
>September 27, 2018 at 12:00 pm
>So you could sell someone a permanent patent licence, and then revoke it later? >That would be wonderful since it makes software patents worthless. No one is going to pay if the licence >can be revoked later.
Sell. Notice SELL: That is a key. Consideration.
When you download linux it's for free. You have no rights to it. Retard
>Steven Naslund says: >September 28, 2018 at 9:04 am >I don’t think this is a difficult legal question, here’s why. If you release something under a specific license and I download it, I would have agreed to those license terms. Later, you can release new code under a new license but your original agreement with me would still be in force. I have no obligation to check to see if you changed the terms of our original agreement unless that agreement had an expiration date. It is as simple as this. We agreed to give me a book and we execute an agreement that says its my book and I can do with it what I please. You cannot later come back and say I can’t, it’s that simple.
Yes I do get to say you cannot do with the book's contents as you please, dipshit fuck. Because I own the copyright.
Here, for no consideration, you've been allowed to do shit with my Work. Because I let you. When I stop letting you: you aren't allowed anymore.
You have no contractual agreement because you paid me nothing and I asked for nothing. Illusory promise. Also it is a pre-existing duty of yours to obey copyright law so "ill obey the license" is not "consideration". The license doesn't give ME anything _I_ didn't allready have. It doesn't make YOU do anything at all.
Name:
Anonymous2025-04-13 6:03
>>2-12 What are you babbling about? Please stay on topic.