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, URIBL_BLOCKED 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 82D33C04AB1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 04:43:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7552208C3 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 04:43:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=redchan.it header.i=@redchan.it header.b="EHIOyz6/" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726894AbfEMEnU (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 00:43:20 -0400 Received: from mx1.cock.li ([185.10.68.5]:45675 "EHLO cock.li" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726179AbfEMEnU (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2019 00:43:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=redchan.it; s=mail; t=1557722595; bh=jKZ6KMdNdQ581vz5QNzdIMdfzhuv0J37HqPVJEZgdfA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:From; b=EHIOyz6/WlQfhVzO4rZBkIHnByXQUwhFQ5N5o3JF+LdNqfF2FBKn73JIdrhsiLnup X1qrqSjYCN3jIWSvzjETb7wMoAVD9YlqUkNiF3rsq7L9GhLfxOPAW+vbNiRCxXJ8ox KzQ8t+V4UKSxK79f66iYJr8gO9p3pmrMvoatAqiACcXTyeuVZrQPsZvUVJ5Iaq57lN Czk+9Nhm07iMxnJ/OVNLrepTM550IWECfpoGaP8i/q+km2VhO7R3GxW/odnRGo5qW9 8ruLLomjvp4E0o4CQH3qEhRKKNXsh0yHrzKjqZpKY2M6Rma0NFp9LouEqOK+5vyVjr Ur4fmv6zU5y2w== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 04:43:15 +0000 From: informator@redchan.it To: antoine.thomas@prestashop.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, misc@openbsd.org, license-discuss-owner@lists.opensource.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: [License-discuss] Can a contributor take back open source code ? - Yes, if he has not signed over the copyright. Message-ID: 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 > 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.