It's perfectly possible to take in software project contributions under license, rather than assignment, without fear of losing rights at the drop of a hat. Apa

It's perfectly possible to take in software project contributions under license, rather than assignment, without fear of losing rights at the drop of a hat. Apache does it. Eclipse does it. Nearly all the major companies stewarding open projects do it. I'm not aware of any substantive distinction in the words "revocation", "termination", or the like, except with specific reference to 203. The question is whether you can show license if they plead infringement. In practice, they'll often plead breach, too. Bare copyright licenses are largely theoretical here. If the terms of a unilateral grant include assurance of irrevocability, thats a strong fact for reliance and estoppel. If there's any question what the terms meant, it will be resolved by rules of contract construction, because it's not a public statute, and contract rules are the rules we have. There is a default rule, when the terms are silent, but it's just a default.