Re: A Plea to Unfuck our Codes of Conduct

Re: A Plea to Unfuck our Codes of Conduct

[unconditionedwitness]

Regarding those who are ejected from the Linux Kernel Community after 
this CoC:

Contributors can, at any time, rescind the license grant regarding their 
property via written notice to those whom they are rescinding the grant 
from (regarding their property (code)) .

The GPL version 2 lacks a no-rescission clause (the GPL version 3 has 
such a clause: to attempt furnish defendants with an estoppel defense, 
the Linux Kernel is licensed under version 2, however, as are the past 
contributions).

When the defendants ignore the rescission and continue using the 
plaintiff's code, the plaintiff can sue under the copyright statute.

Banned contributors _should_ do this (note: plaintiff is to register 
their copyright prior to filing suit, the copyright does not have to be 
registered at the time of the violation however)

Additionally when said banned contributors joined the Linux team, they 
were under the impression that it was a meritocracy: in-fact this belief 
was stated or ratified by those within the governing body regarding 
Linux when the contributors began their work (whatever that body was at 
that time, it could have been simply Linus, or Linus and a few 
associates).

The remuneration for the work was implied to be, or perhaps stated, to 
be fame as-well as a potential increase in the contributors stature, in 
addition to membership in the Linux Kernel club or association, or 
whatever it is that the Linux Kernel Community actually is (which a 
court may determine... it is something, suffice to say).

Thusly for work, consideration was promised by (Linus? Others? There are 
years of mailing list archives with which to determine).

And now that consideration has been clawed-back and the contributors 
image has been tarnished.

Thus the worker did work, however the other side of the implied, or 
perhaps written (email memorandums), understanding has been violated 
(once the contributor has been banned under the new non-meritocratic 
"CoC").

Damages could be recovered under: breach of contract, quazi-contract, 
libel, false-light. (services rendered for the contractual claims, 
future lost income for the libel claims)

In addition to copyright claims. (statutory damages, profits)

For greatest effect, all rescission should be done at once in a bloc. 
(With other banned contributors).

Contributors: You were promised something, you laboured for that 
promise, and now the promise has become a lie. You have remedies 
available to you now, as-well as in the close future .

Additionally, regarding those who promoted the Code of Conduct to be 
used against the linux kernel contributors, knowing full well the effect 
it would have and desiring those effects; recovery for the ejected 
contributors via a tortious interference claim may be possible.

Re: A Plea to Unfuck our Codes of Conduct

[unconditionedwitness]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1476 bytes --]

The GPLv2 is not a contract, it is a revocable license.

Here is a paper explaining what the GPL is and is not:
http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf

(With full citations).
(PDF attached)

Page 12 starts the relevant discussion.
Page 16 begins the explanation of all the ways the GPL is not a 
contract.

Later there is a short gloss of state law promissory estopple doctrines.
Remember: in the case of the linux kernel it, unlike other projects, 
omitted the "or any later version" codicil, and is only under version 2 
of the GPL, which makes no promise of irrevocability by grantor.

(Note: The SFConservancy recently chose to publish a "correction" that 
conflates clauses, within version 2 of the GPL, [that clarify that if a 
licensee's license is revoked by operation of the license for a 
violation of the terms, that sub-licensees licenses are not-in-turn 
automatically revoked] - [with an inexistent irrevocability doctrine 
within the text of the GPLv2])
(Additionally: Clause 0 of GPLv2 specifically defines the "you" in said 
clauses as referring to the licensee (not the grantor); the 
SFConservancy's conflation is shown to be ever more disingenuous)

The Linux Kernel License grant:
Is Not: a contract. [No breach of contract damages vs grantor if 
rescinded]
Is: a bare license akin to a property license.
And: There is no "irrevocable by grantor" promise in v2. [No promissory 
estopple defense]
.: Can be rescinded at will.

[-- Attachment #2: kumar-gpl-licenses.pdf --]
[-- Type: application/pdf, Size: 261499 bytes --]