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

>>7
>The additional writings thing only works as an appendix to the GPL.
>Their new rule applies to their collaboration infrastructure and those have their own separate contract that govern them.

A court doesn't take as a given that the only terms affecting a Work is License.txt. They don't operate like a program. These extra rules are in writing and presented to anyone looking at the code (they're presented up front).

They explicitly state the opinion of the copyright holders to exclude paedophiles and anti-feminists.
A court could certainly see that as part of the licensing regime.

They are additional writings governing the disposition of the Work.
Yes they are a license(permission). Yes they are in addition to the GPL. Yes the copyright holders can do that.
(even if it would violate the copyright of the work from which some of the project was derived: it's up to the original copyright holder to enforce his original terms against the down-the-line licensee) (the california case challenging this hasn't made it through the courts yet (suggesting 3rd party benificiary standing (under a contract theory of copyright (where an actual good was purchased for sale))))

It is made clear that paedophiles and anti-feminists are NOT permitted to engage with the Linux Kernel, with Xonotic, with Darkplaces, with anything in the opensource world. That rule is actively enforced.

And that is underscored with Kitsune being summerly banned.
Yes this is a licensing change.
And yes it can go beyond "merely" being banned for "the community".
Xonotic and Darkplaces could go to court, should Kitsune continue development, and explain to the court that they do not want Kitsune to have access to their Works.
The Court can then read ALL the wrightings associated with the Work, and come to the conclusion that the no-pedophiles clause is binding. Just because it is not in License.txt is not dispositive.

Additionally: kitsune has no consideration vs Xonotic and Darkplaces: so whatever license he had: isn't worth anything. It can be revoked. And the court could note that it, constructively, has been.

Think of Constructive Eviction, and Constructive Dismissal.

Additionally, both in Xonotic's case, and in Darkplaces, some of the copyright holders evinced that they did not desire paedophiles (such as Kitsune in their mind) to have anything to do with what they were doing at all: and to not be allowed to be associated with their Works at all. That's a license revocation: once they voted on it and acted upon it.

Which they did.