>>105807292Controling derivative works is an exclusive right of the Copyright holder: regardless of license.
Which the Code of Conduct enforcers have taken for themselves. That's why it's a Copyright violation: they impinge on one of the Copyright owners exclusive rights.
Additionally: The license language the Copyright holder has CHOSEN in this instance is the GPL: which states the licensee cannot impose any "furthur restictions not enumerated in this text" (parapharased) on SUBLICENSEES (I USED THE WORD) / Down-the-line-licensees
Which furthur clairifies that the licensee does not have the right to add any other rules.
Which the Code of Conduct adding licensees do do: and often where they have taken over the field regarding the Copyrighted work in Question.
That is: They act as an Agent of the Copyright holder: without permission and without him asking them to. They impose restrictions on the practical creation of derivative works; AGAINST the Copyright owners express wishes.
It is a violation.
Just as Grsecurity is a violation.
The CoC enforcers engage in censorship, banning, libel, falselight, and various other torts to make sure they are the only practical real-world avenue regarding the Copyrighted Work.
A court would weigh this real-world circumstance vs the theoretical proper working of the GPL.
Anyone can read a proprietary book in their mind and have a "private fork" in their head. When they cannot meaningfully engage regarding another work because a 3rd party has interfered against the wishes of the Copyright owner: it cannot be said that there is no impingement against the Copyright owner who has "GPL'd" this now captured Work.