Under US law, consideration has long been a specter haunting the enforceability of open source licenses--specifically enforcement by the user against the copyri

Under US law, consideration has long been a specter haunting the enforceability of open source licenses--specifically enforcement by the user against the copyright holder. Here's the problem: If the copyright holder gains nothing in the transaction that the license governs, then the license is not an enforceable contract. Thus, the user cannot enforce the terms of the license against the copyright holder. The copyright holder could, for example, revoke the license at any time and demand everyone stop using the open source software. I've always wondered: Could an open source license create consideration by referring to the copyright holder's business or career interest in the software enjoying widespread use and acclaim? As a software developer, I could stand to gain financially from the success of my open source project. For example, I could leverage my notoriety into a well-compensated position. Or I could hire myself out as a consultant to users of the open source software. Or I could start a business, and piggyback off the prominence of the open source software to promote my business. There are also theories whereby promissory estoppel would protect users against copyright holders. I won't comment on these theories except to say that they're pretty much untested. This area of law is mostly unsettled. There's far too little case law for anyone to make a definitive pronouncement yet.