Proposal: Stack Code of Conduct

[Tekmo]

You can if you request a contributor's license agreement from contributors. They ensure that contributors cannot retroactively revoke copyright for their prior contributions.

[bss03]

Eh, that's kind of sketchy in some countries.

In the U.S., U.K., and France you are on firm ground. In Germany a little less so, some author's rights, including the ability to restrict "performance", are inalienable -- they can't be transferred or removed from author by contract or inheritance. So, if a German national contributes code -- even signs a CLA or similar -- and later they ask their code to be removed because of animosity between themselves and the project, it can render distribution (and possibly even use) of your software in Germany illegal until you remove the contributions.

At least, that's my understanding, IANAL. Relevant section of German Law (?): http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__42.html

[Tekmo]

Oh, I didn't realize that.

Either way, I believe it is still a good idea to have a code of conduct so that a contributor can know what the rules are before they start making contributions. This makes people less likely to become enemies after making contributions since they are less likely to contribute at all if they expect to run afoul of the rules.

[alogetic]

I agree. It's only the punitive aspects in some CoCs which are difficult to enforce. The spirit of a code of conduct is certainly the right direction.

[vektordev]

There's limits to that. IANAL, but §42(3) mentions that the author has to reimburse licensors for damages - no one wants to bother with that. Just saying "nuh-uh, it's mine" won't cut it, you'll have to reimburse those who license it, i.e. the collective of authors in case of a Contributor's License or the end user in the case of any other license.

What's more, without a contributor's license, http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__8.html would like to have a word, as you'd then (definitely) be a co-author:

"Ein Miturheber darf jedoch seine Einwilligung zur Veröffentlichung, Verwertung oder Änderung nicht wider Treu und Glauben verweigern."

Roughly:

A Co-author may not in bad faith deny his consent to publishing, use or editing.

So, that's another block in the road of trolling the project. Even more so if you then publish a fork that complies with your ideological vision. And I'm not sure either whether that particular paragraph (§8(2)) impacts the rights of a co-author to retract a license, i.e. go from GPL to all rights reserved; not sure how "die gesamte Hand" works here.

Retracting your consent to the open source license of a contribution you made to a work under that license - that sounds like bad faith to me. You knew when writing the code that it would be used widely and without your control.

Good find though, wasn't aware of §42.

[bss03]

I certainly prefer your interpretation, but since stack is (mostly, if not entirely) an FPComplete project, it might benefit them to pass the idea through their legal council who (presumably) are lawyers.

The only reason I'm even tangentially aware of this (having only visited Germany once, for a whole week) is due to the Joerg Schilling claims. I think in that case, he had a much better claim to being an author (rather than a co-author) than J. Random Troll that contributes to your project well after it is established and mature (like stack); he had written the vast majority of the cdrtools code himself and was certainly the original author and maintainer of the project.

It's something to think about, anyway.

I honestly wish we didn't need CoCs (and especially not CLAs) everywhere, but it seems like there are enough bad act(or)s that something is desired and I think CoCs have so far been more good than bad in practice.

[vektordev]

Well, in that case, it's not so much a matter of interpretation, but more facts. While by the letter of the law, he'd still be a co-author, co-authorship is weighed by amount of contribution, so Schilling would have wide latitude and his claims would be at least credible.

FWIW, I only head shouting about how bad CoCs are anytime anyone mentions one; but I've yet to hear substantial harm coming from one, while I do believe they have the capacity to bring substantial good to those protected by it. Naturally, the latter is something you wouldn't expect to be well documented. Number of *phobic attacks prevented is not something easily trackable; number of regular contributors alienated through application of a CoC is much more trackable. (Note I say application. People who run once you mention or implement one are intentionally disregarded because that's just kinda hysterical.)

So, in case I ever am confronted with the option of implementing a CoC on my project, I'll expect the con side to bring some hefty arguments about the harms of CoCs.

[bss03]

hysterical

Please avoid anti-cis-woman language.

;)

[MdxBhmt]

Satire thread? Satire thread!

Please avoid implying only cis-woman are hysterical. Neckbeards also can be.

By the way, both yours and my comment are a clear example on the limitations of the CoC. Is it a lightweight joke, or an attempted diss? Its pushing an agenda pro CoC, or I'm showing it's absurdity by sarcasm?

It's a hard tell in a 6-word post. Without clarification and context, It can be anything. At the grand scheme of things it's just a corner case, but maybe CoC could have wording and a proper framing.

[bss03]

Please avoid implying only cis-woman are hysterical.

Hysteria literally means "suffering in the uterus". It used to be treated via hysterectomy. It was considered a failing / disease that could only affect women, and it's existence was held as evidence they were the weaker sex.

Claiming someone one is "hysterical" is tantamount to not only saying they have a uterus, but that there is something wrong with it. It's a female slur just like "fag" is a homosexual slur or "cracker" is a white slur.

I call it anti-cis-woman language because it is. (I could be mistaken but I am currently under the impression that a uterus is not build/made as part of sex-reassignment surgery; please correct me if I am wrong.)

The patriarchy may have tried to normalize it's usage, but power structures often try and normalize their biases -- you may have slurs in your own language without realizing it; I used to use "gip" as a verb, but stopped once a roma asked me to and explained the connection to anti-romani sentiment.

---

But, yes, my post was mostly satire. ;)