Xonotic 0.9 developer license change.

While the end-user player license remains the same as previous versions, Xonotic has added to it's developers a no-pedophile rule .
*[1]

Some might say "this isn't a license change".
A license is permission. Xonotic has voted on, and agreed to this new rule.
It may very well be found by a court to be a license change for developers.

>THEY CAN'T DO THAT
They did.
>THE GPL DOESNT ALLOW THAT!
Got 500k to fight it out?
Also they'll claim their change isn't in the end-user license (but it is an enforced rule, which was voted on and agreed to by the other copyright holders in the Xonotic 0.9 team, and the steering committee): which may amount, by court ruling, to a change in the developer license.
>THIS ISNT A __LICENSE__ CHANGE
It is clear that the community has voted on, including the other copyright holders (though derivative) of various pieces, to enact a no-pedophile rule for Xonotic 0.9 etc.

It cannot be said that it is totally non-enforceable: the copyright holders to the derivative work Xonotic 0.9 (derivative of earlier versions of Xonotic, which is derivative of Nexuiz, which is derivative of an earlier half-life mod, All of which is a derivative work of Quake1 (the engine especially, and much of the Quake C (game) code in Xonotic)), have made clear their feelings about pedophiles working on their project, and have voted to exclude atleast one person.

Darkplaces also, on it's discord, posts a no-pedophile developers rule.**[2]
These can be seen as license changes.

They are Additional Writings outside of the original License text that, none-the-less, govern the real-world redaction of the subject Work. They also speak to the intent of the current developers/derivative-copyright-holders. Which is to exclude the class of pedophile programmer and developers. That is the intent of these additional writings.

Additionally these changes have been enforced (Both in Darkplaces***, and Xonotic****), which would further enduice the intent and meaning of these added rules to indeed disallow pedophiles from working on the work: https://mircea-kitsune.livejournal.com/27604.html
:
>a warning to other developers here to be careful, for your team may ban you from working on your own code if someone doesn't like what you said

------------------------------------------------------------
****https://mircea-kitsune.livejournal.com/27701.html
***https://mircea-kitsune.livejournal.com/27604.html

**[2]
>6. Anyone who identifies as a pedophile, or who openly advocates for child sexual abuse, whether in, around, or outside of the community, regardless of the time it occurred, will be permanently banned from the DarkPlaces community without appeal.
From:
>DarkPlaces engine is an advanced Quake 1 engine, developed by @LadyHavoc, implementing modern rendering features and extensions to its programming language QuakeC, allowing the development of more advanced games than what the original 1996 engine allowed.
(https://discord.com/invite/ZHT9QeW)

*[1]
https://xonotic.org/teamvotes/414/
>In the interest of protecting the community, not only any potential minors, but also its developers and other staff from the unforgiving Internet mob, MirceaKitsune, following the precedent set by Wikipedia, must be removed from the community permanently, without any chance to appeal. While I'm not a fan of cancel culture myself, I draw a firm, strict line at pedophilia and advocacy of it in any form, and we must not associate with anyone who identifies as a pedophile, or who has advocated for the sexual abuse of children, at any point in time, anywhere.
>--Cloudwalk
>I'm not okay with someone even indirectly involved in this project that has advocated pedophilia.
>--Antibody

>>10

Why do you reply with basically the same message over and over?

I didn't. You have ignored my reference to the NY court.

You are not even considering or refuting my specific point.

Because it is wrong
>that is, the GPL ("License.txt") ONLY governs the CODE and BINARIES of the project.
"License.txt" is not the only writing stating the intentions of the rights-holders in existence anymore.
You are asserting that it is a fully-integrated (one page) "agreement".
When there are now multiple writings stating the intended disposition regarding the permission the rights holders are granting.
In some of these they state they do not want certain classes of persons to be using their code.

>The GPL cannot be revoked retroactively.
Yes it can be, from a free taker.
Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broad. Servs., Inc., 128 F.3d 872, 882 (5th Cir. 1997);
>("[N]onexclusive licenses are revocable absent consideration."). Where consideration is present, however, the license is irrevocable, and "[t]his is so because a nonexclusive license supported by consideration is a contract.


>Jacobsen v. Katzer
Have you read Jacobsen v. Katzer? The 9th circuit appellate court ruled that the Artistic License was /not/ a contract, and was instead a simple copyright license. It found that the lower court erred in construing the Artistic License as a contract, and reversed the lower courts finding: telling the lower court that the Artistic License is not a contract.

That is, if anything, supportive of the "revokists" position.