The CoC will lead only to infighting amongst the contributors, with this
new weapon wielded firmly in all participants hands.

It is another example of "looking the gift horse in the mouth"
(Linus telling everyone to [fsck] off is the previous example]
and will only be tolerated by the hirelings. The community contributors
will fade away and the complete corporate takeover of the kernel will be
complete.

Linux will suffer the same fate as the FreeBSD team (who have lost half
their contributors), additionally morally-questionable code (ie: code
that befits content owners over the user, code that benefits the
security interests of the states over the user, etc) will be folded into
the kernel with a smile.

While you are correct regarding most free-software and open-culture
licenses, which often include a no-rescission clause, or are stylized as
a contract (giving rise to a possible interest defense), it does not
apply to version 2 of the GPL specifically (remeber: Linus rejected the
any-later-version codicil, thus any license improvements are out of
reach regarding the kernel, and v3 has very important improvements).
Version 2 of the GPL creates no contractual interests, nor does it
contain language that would give clear indication to the grantee that
his license will never be revoked by the property owner (who has an
absolute right to revoke grants at will, where there is no interest
attached to the grant etc).

The Free Software movement is, and will continue to be decimated by this
industry-wide advance for the next 5 years at-least, as project after
project falls to classic divide and conquer techniques that date to
before the Roman empire. Programmers, though brilliant in their specific
field, tend to be ignorant of even basic human management practice - and
resistant to learn.


On 2018-09-19 08:43, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I concur with Richard. Everything I know about the license tells me it
> can not be rescinded or withdrawn. It can only be terminated for
> infringement.
>
> I understand that codes of conduct added to the group long after your
> first participation are frustrating for some, and may even seem
> draconian. I see the need for them, and suggest you consider the views
> of others.
>
> If you have no alternative, the license allows you to fork the project
> and make your own conduct rules.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bruce
>
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2018, 5:38 AM Richard Stallman <rms@???> wrote:
>
>> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider
>> ]]]
>> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies,
>> ]]]
>> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example.
>> ]]]
>>
>>> One is rescission of the license they granted regarding their
>> code, and
>>> then a lawsuit under copyright if/when the rescission is
>> ignored.
>>> The others are breach of contract, libel, false light, etc.
>>
>> If "rescission" is really a possibility, it would cause greast
>> trouble
>> for the free software community. We would need to take steps to
>> make
>> sure it cannot happen.
>>
>> However, that goes against everything I have been told by others.
>>
>> --
>> Dr Richard Stallman
>> President, Free Software Foundation (https://gnu.org,
>> https://fsf.org)
>> Internet Hall-of-Famer (https://internethalloffame.org)