[License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? - Yes, if he has not signed over the copyright.
Date: Mon May 13 2019 - 01:15:59 EST
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 very quality that makes opensource attractive makes any attempt to
create a mutually enforceable agreement an artifice - and one that will
(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
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
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":
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:
(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)
Note: If you would like a nice expansive legal paper to read on this
issue, Sapna Kumar's paper is good:
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
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.