>>81892945
It's called detrimental reliance.
They said anyone is welcome to contribute code.
They said they believed in freedom of speech and only code matters; neither belief nor conduct matter.

Loli loving Paedophiles and Furries then did code, for free, for them, based on these princapaels for 15 consecutive years of their life.
Then they were banned for being loco for loli, and wanting to FUCK little virgin girls: a right given to them by the God YHWH.
The project continue to use the code and media of the ejected parties.

No they are not allowed to do this:
Induce action based on promises (freedom of speech, thought, only code matters, not conduct or belief)
Receive work-product based on those promises.
Break that promise.

>>105825648
>Why should it be legally impossible for me to come up to you and say "here, I promise you can use this thing forever"? Why would I not have the right to do so?

Because it is an illusory promise.

You can transfer your copyright to another person just as you can gift your watch to another person: but then it is theirs exclusively.
(Note: Under the copyright statute you can claw it back after 30 years or so).
You cannot bind yourself to a promise for free however.
"I promise not to revoke the permission to do X with my property from Y, for nothing"
"I promise not to sue X for copyright infringement, for free"
Which is what the opensource licenses (some of them) pro-port to do.
GPLv2 doesn't even try though (v3 does).