> Reusing the previous example, the purpose of the GPL was to drive out proprietary software; yet the people using it in Linux do not yield it that way.
That was an outcome that was hoped for, not a purpose. The purpose is pretty explicit in the preamble paragraphs [0] - to promote a certain style of freedom. As a body, the Free Software community wouldn't deny that if creating non-free software is legal, then free software can be used to achieve that goal. They have a more fundamental objection to the government creating and then enforcing the concept of copyright.
The kernel community has been very aggressive about securing that freedom for themselves, particularly in arenas such as allowing non-free drivers into the kernel. They don't take a politically activist stance of lobbying to change the law, but they don't seem to deal with code that they can't legally modify themselves.
The kernel community may well be cherry-picking from the GNU strategy, but the GPL is being used as intended - to promote and secure freedom for users.
> What part of the actual text of the CoC prevents a meritocracy?
The part where it sets out that the Technical Advisory Board (aka the TAB) will presumably remove people form the community who are in breach of the code of conduct, without language that exempts people who have a long history of positive technical contribution.
Everything involves tradeoffs. Being a meritocracy means that individuals of technical merit are given leeway to fumble, or even potentially abuse, the status of their position.
Good example is Hans Reiser - the case was rendered moot by him being imprisoned, but a meritocracy says "the code is good, let him keep contributing" and a non-meritocractic community would presumably say "we don't want to associate with murderers".
Obviously nobody wants the to encourage bad behavior, but the question being asked is /how much/ slack do great technical contributors get if they happen to be, say, autistic and antisocial. Historically, the answer has been lots of slack. In future, the answer looks like it will be corporate-acceptable-behavior, which is a higher standard. Presumably if there is a group who thinks this change is needed it will be followed by a purge of the community where marginal maintainers are pushed out.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html