Anonymous
7/7/2025, 2:55:44 PM
No.105826677
>>105826614
>This is true, but again a CoC is generally social and not legally binding.
>Linus added a CoC to the official Linus kernel repository. If all the hobbyist programmers made a different repository for the kernel they could exclude the CoC from it. They just haven't bothered.
>This doesn't stem from Linus having any sort of copyright or legal right, it stems purely from Linus having social capital due to being "the face of Linux", the single most well-known developer, the one known for starting and leading the project, the main point of contact with the US assets who have a vested interest in Linux, etc. etc.
>All purely social and not legal.
A court wouldn't be fooled.
A Copyright holder has an exclusive right to control Derivatives.
The CoC's are emplaced by non-rightsholding 3rd parties usually, or 3rd parties lacking total-ownership or even majority-ownership over the Property.
They effectivly: in reality: control Derivative works.
While not being adjudicated by rights-holding parties.
A court would beable to be made aware of the realities of the situation: that's what Court is for.
So you're somewhat wrong here.
The Court would take into account this, what you call, the "social control".
And see that.
1) the CoC is effective in adding additional terms and restrictions to the * project
2) the CoC is effective in controling who "gets" to make derivative works and who "gets" to contribute to the project
3) the Copyright holders didn't agree to this.
It's a copyright violation.
>This is true, but again a CoC is generally social and not legally binding.
>Linus added a CoC to the official Linus kernel repository. If all the hobbyist programmers made a different repository for the kernel they could exclude the CoC from it. They just haven't bothered.
>This doesn't stem from Linus having any sort of copyright or legal right, it stems purely from Linus having social capital due to being "the face of Linux", the single most well-known developer, the one known for starting and leading the project, the main point of contact with the US assets who have a vested interest in Linux, etc. etc.
>All purely social and not legal.
A court wouldn't be fooled.
A Copyright holder has an exclusive right to control Derivatives.
The CoC's are emplaced by non-rightsholding 3rd parties usually, or 3rd parties lacking total-ownership or even majority-ownership over the Property.
They effectivly: in reality: control Derivative works.
While not being adjudicated by rights-holding parties.
A court would beable to be made aware of the realities of the situation: that's what Court is for.
So you're somewhat wrong here.
The Court would take into account this, what you call, the "social control".
And see that.
1) the CoC is effective in adding additional terms and restrictions to the * project
2) the CoC is effective in controling who "gets" to make derivative works and who "gets" to contribute to the project
3) the Copyright holders didn't agree to this.
It's a copyright violation.