Hi, > > The CoC is a political document: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20180924234027/https://twitter.com/coralineada/status/1041465346656530432 > ... > > Here is the author's post-meritocracy manifesto: > > https://postmeritocracy.org/ > > There have been those who have characterized the GPL as being more > than just a license, but also a political statement. And yet, many > projects, include Linus, use the GPL without necessarily subscribing > to all of Richard Stallman's positions, political or otherwise.
for clarification: My statement above that the CoC is a political document is not my opinion but a succinct summary of the content of the tweet linked below it. Here is the full tweet: > Some people are saying that the Contributor Covenant is a political > document, and they’re right. Subsuming both the GNU GPL including the views of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Contributor Covenant CoC is grossly negligent: The GPL is a set of rights and obligations with respect to software but it is indifferent to the behavior of the developers whereas the CoC is a set of rights and obligations for developers but it is indifferent to the goods developed by them. The GNU General Public Licenses are agreements on rights and obligations when executing or depending on certain software. The only way to be influenced by the GPL is by using GPL code or by licensing one's own code under the GPL. If you strongly disagree with the contents of the GPL, you can avoid it by developing your own software and by not using GPL software. Most importantly, the FSF and the people supporting and promoting the GPL do so in part by creating high-quality software themselves, see the list in reference [1]. Some of the most important packages on a _GNU/Linux_ system were developed by or given to the FSF. I looked at the list mentioned above and stopped counting after I had found 19 pieces of software that I am actively using on a regular basis including Bash, binutils, gcc, libc, and gtk+. Did you write your e-mail with GPL-licensed Mutt, Ted? With the Contributor Covenant CoC, you have all of this turned upside down: * It is irrelevant what is created by a group of people. * It applies to everyone almost always; if you never contributed to Linux kernel development, you can still denounce active contributors to the TAB for behavior that *might* be considered inappropriate. * There is no project whose quality, productivity, or success grew after introduction of this CoC. Reading the CoC, it is plain obvious that the good created by a community is of no relevance to the CoC. At the same time, the period of validity of the CoC is almost unlimited: It applies whenever a person interacts with other developers, and whenever she represents the project, and whenever her conduct might be deemed inappropriate. The CoC is also almost unlimited in its scope of application: It applies when insults are uttered, when language is not welcoming enough, and when statements might be deemed inappropriate. To enforce the CoC, an organization has to introduce its own prosecution: There is an investigative board, the TAB, which is obliged to handle reports of CoC violations confidentially and the findings are presented to the maintainers which punish community members based on these findings. The CoC has never improved any piece of software and it drives away core contributors: * The fifth most active LLVM contributor Rafael Avila de Espindola left over a CoC that is more tame the Contributor Covenant CoC [2]. * Node.js developer Rodd Vagg was almost removed from Node.js based on undisclosed allegations [3]. Node.js Technical Steering Committee members were not at liberty to discuss the allegations with the accused [4]. Later, a third of the TSC members quit simultaneously [5]. * Long-time Drupal developer Larry Garfield was removed as developer because of his personal preference for BDSM [6]. His views were "in opposition to the values of the Drupal project" [7]. The Drupal CoC is in spirit similar to the Contributor Covenant CoC [8]. > The use of GPLv2 does not magically brainwash all of users of that > document to blindly follow its author. The same is true of the CoC. The Ruby developers refused to introduce the Contributor Covenant CoC [9] and this led to a thinly veiled Twitter attack of the CoC author on Ruby chief designer matz [10]. You will not be brainwashed by the CoC but a Twitter goon squad will be waiting for you. In summary, your comparison of Richard Stallman's lobbying to the tweets of the CoC author are inappropriate. Your comparison of the GNU General Public License with the Contributor Covenant CoC is an insult to the FSF. Sincerely Christoph Conrads [1] https://www.gnu.org/manual/blurbs.html [2] https://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/122922.html [3] https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/310 [4] https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/165#issuecomment-324798494 [5] https://www.zdnet.com/article/after-governance-breakdown-node-js-leaders-fight-for-its-survival/ [6] https://www.garfieldtech.com/blog/tmi-outing [7] https://dri.es/living-our-values [8] https://www.drupal.org/dcoc [9] https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12004 [10] https://web.archive.org/web/20180917225801/https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/690334282607378432
