From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD89C04AB1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 05:14:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4427720873 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 05:14:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redchan.it header.i=@redchan.it header.b="b0VE/YeA" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727303AbfEMFO2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 01:14:28 -0400 Received: from mx1.cock.li ([185.10.68.5]:53125 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725970AbfEMFO2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 01:14:28 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=redchan.it; s=mail; t=1557724464; bh=xUxvyDs6/5Faw+V5uDyUv2qxk/T1Hixe5Md1p7cOMPM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=b0VE/YeA5FpYO275GE0REyyjLQNKb+aVQ/gGTrvJulmkoG4aIlxarJcBnBKZGKVS6 0WeL1nru3BdBda7RsLAlqfV/v8FwgUGvR8I6V9aZa3/XZbsWsmk9UIlEP5N7n6oDf9 bPweQ7f742DvABHlb3rf0G0ZkiCZetuFffKqcBIuZbHd4yx5gaMswu+s+lF1d4XkAD etwX/fQjaPl/95AWjYneWyKaY8yvciZJSjyhT5xvE5VoIMdgqRaiZKzxcmHdyhvZ9g 3c0E/3/fDj8w93EC8M0x7krIrUTmRdchKy9qe43V/ca37jEoSdH35KtfVVtnVCgZ6U pEMn/QtdNFOZA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 05:14:24 +0000 From: informator@redchan.it To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? - Yes, if he has not signed over the copyright. Message-ID: <93d470e7054eb9268179b60bc567e95e@redchan.it> X-Sender: informator@redchan.it User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Kevin. > but there is no path which would force the project to do so. This is incorrect. > If the contributions were legitimately provided under an OSI-approved > (or similar) license, the license cannot be terminated for convenience. This is also incorrect. Free non-exclusive licenses can be terminated at-will by the copyright owner. A non-exclusive license, in and of itself, confers no enforceable rights against the grantor without being merged into a contract - regardless of whatever assertions are made in the text. The very quality that makes opensource attractive makes any attempt to create a mutually enforceable agreement an artifice - and one that will fail. (And, Yes I am an attorney) ---- > I have a "not easy" question: is it possible for a contributor to > remove his contributions (code, translations, ...) from an open source > project? In short: Yes the copyright holder can do just that in most cases we see in the wild (where there is no copyright assignment and the licensees are free-takers). It seems to the policy of the FSF, SFLC, etc to claim to you that Illusory Promises are enforceable in the US courts, or to claim that obeying a preexisting legal duty is valid consideration for a mutually enforceable agreement (contract). Obviously you have an inkling to the contrary since you are asking this question. Your suspicion is well founded, as consideration, contrary to what interested parties may want you to believe, is still generally a requirement for a promise to be held enforceable, in the US. ----- Assuming: Contributor has not signed over his copyrights, and the entity did not pay consideration to the "contributor": Yes. Free Non-exclusive licenses are revocable. For a promise not to revoke or to revoke only under certain circumstances to be binding against the grantor he must have received some bargained-for consideration in exchange. "Nothing" is not valid consideration. Offering what you are trying to contract for as "consideration" for that very contract is not valid consideration. Obeying a pre-existing legal duty (not violating the copyright holder's copyright) is not valid consideration. You can read a lengthy explanation for the lay person here: lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/3/698 (and it covers the 9th circuit Artifex case and 9th circuit Artistic License case which some people will try to make you think invalidates your proprietary rights) or here: lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/4/334 Note: If you would like a nice expansive legal paper to read on this issue, Sapna Kumar's paper is good: scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1857/ www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876 papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=243237 > And, if someone do that, is it possible for the project to continue to > maintain the previous version, thanks to the license? (I mean, before > the deletion) No. Once the license is revoked, if the licensee cannot show that it has an attached interest (ie: a valid contract), by law the licensee no-longer has permission from the copyright owner to use/distribute/modify/etc the work of authorship. They may beg the court under equity for some accommodation, of course.