It's important to note that it wasn't always like this. The basic concept of termination rights -- recognizing the wild power imbalance between artist and publi

It's important to note that it wasn't always like this. The basic concept of termination rights -- recognizing the wild power imbalance between artist and publisher, and therefore giving the artist a second crack at selling their rights -- is quite old, but in practice it hasn't mattered; the upshot was that the standard publishing deal included an automatic renewal, so the right may as well not have existed. So in 1976 Congress chose to double down on termination, making it explicitly an inalienable right that cannot be sold by any type of contract. It strikes me as a rather tortured reading of this that makes it a limitation of the artists' rights, rather than the publishers'; like laws which outlaw contractual slavery, while it technically bans both parties from participating, the intended impact is much more on the would-be oppressor than the oppressed. Now, the impact that this might have on open source is certainly interesting, but I doubt it would have far-reaching implications since termination wouldn't retroactively affect licenses that were in force at the time, so derivative works would be in the clear. On the other hand, who knows how the case law will shake out on this over the next few years... software will probably not be the most affected industry.