lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Code of Conduct: Let's revamp it.
    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.

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2018-09-20 11:31    [W:4.546 / U:0.584 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site