Code of Conduct: Yes mjg59 (Matthew Garrett) Consent _is_ important. gratuitous licenses are revocable at will.

[gratuitouslicensesarerevocable]

Spurned linux contributors SHOULD revoke the license grant they have 
given regarding their code. In the case of the linux kernel; These are 
typically gratuities and can be rescinded at the will of the grantor.

> ecree wrote:
> That is presuming my consent against me, and consent is very important 
> to me.

> mjg59 (Matthew Garrett) wrote:
> It's not presuming your consent at all, it's adding a condition to your 
> future participation. If you find that condition unacceptable then you 
> should let your employers know - they can either make a case to the 
> Linux Foundation or move you to another role. Remember that 
> participation in the kernel is a privilege, not a right, and our 
> involvement as always been at the whims of Linus. I'm well aware of how 
> much it sucks when he makes decisions I don't like without consulting 
> with the rest of the community, and I'm also aware that there's nothing 
> I can do about it.

Consent is important, keeping the rights-holders happy is important.
A gratuitous license is revocable at the will of the grantor.
If ecree holds copyright to his contributions, and he sought no 
consideration (usually money) from the licensee, he can revoke the 
license grant at any time under US property law.

Contributors to the linux code base do not typically sign over their 
copyrights to linux or a foundation, instead retaining the copyright 
themselves.
Contributors (here specifically: copyright holders) to the linux code 
base do not typically take money from those to whom they license their 
work.

Do the math.
Property 101.
There is a reason Moglen required assignments to the FSF for gnu related 
work, and the public story does not give the whole truth regarding 
intent.
(estopple won't save you, nor will it save would-have-been potential 
future licensees)

(And yes, I am a lawyer (but not yours))