Thank you for your input.

The term "social contract" is being used in very different meanings, so making a clear definition is important first step.

For example, some 22.2 community asked Justin to sue Ned. To do that, you need legal evidence, not "social contract" - it is basically hearsay at best.

And if it is not legal or official, I found it not very convincing that the new buyer should succeed such "social contract".

Judging from what I have read so far, the "evidence" suggested by 22.2 community seems to be mere roadmap/plan for several years ago or personal statements on the web, which is far from any legally binding evidence. At best, Ned or Dan who made statememts may be responsible.