Yesterday I got email from a project asking me to wear my tribal-elder hat, looking for advice on how to re-invent its governance structure. I’m not going to name the project because they haven’t given me permission to air their problems in public, but I need to write about something that came up during the discussion, when my querent said they were thinking about requiring a contributor release form from people submitting code, “the way Apache does”.

“Don’t do it!” I said. Please don’t go the release-form route. It’s bad for the open-source community’s future every time someone does that. In the rest of this post I’ll explain why.

Every time a project says “we need you to sign a release before we’ll take your code”, it helps create a presumption that such releases are necessary – as opposed to the opposite theory, which is that the act of donating code to an open-source project constitutes in itself a voluntary cession of the project’s right to use it under terms implied by the open-source license of the project.

Obviously one of those theories is better for open source – no prize for guessing which.

Here is the language NTPsec uses in its hacking guide:

By submitting patches to this project, you agree to allow them to be redistributed under the project’s license according to the normal forms and usages of the open-source community.

There is as much legal ground for the cession theory of contribution as there is for any idea that contributor releases are required for some nebulous kind of legal safety. There’s no governing statute and no case law on this; no dispute over an attempt to revoke a contribution has yet been adjudicated.

And here’s the ironic part: if it ever comes to a court case, one of the first things the judge is going to look at is community expectations and practice around our licenses. A jurist is supposed to do this in contract and license cases; there’s some famous case law about the interpretation of handshake contracts among Hasidic Jewish diamond merchants in New York City that makes this very clear and explicit. Where there is doubt about interpretation and no overriding problem of of equity, the norms of the community within which the license/contract was arrived at should govern.

So, if the judge thinks that we expect contribution permissions to fail closed unless explicitly granted, he/she is more likely to make that happen. On the other hand, if he/she thinks that community norms treat contribution as an implied cession of certain rights in exchange for the benefits of participating in the project, that is almost certainly how the ruling will come out.

I say, therefore, that Apache and the FSF and the Golang project and everybody else requiring contributor releases are wrong. Because there is no governing law on the effect of these release forms, they are not actually protection against any risk, just a sort of ritual fundament-covering that a case of first impression could toss out in a heartbeat. Furthermore, the way they’ve gone wrong is dangerous; this ritual fundament-covering could someday bring about the very harm it was intended to prevent.

If your project has a contributor release, do our whole community a favor and scrap it. Any lawyer who tells you such a thing is necessary is talking out his ass – he doesn’t know that, and at the present state of the law he can’t know it.

(My wife Cathy, the attorney, concurs. So this advice isn’t just a layperson vaporing in ignorance.)

Instead, post a contract of adhesion on your website or in your guide for contributors. Use my language, or edit to taste. The one thing you should be sure stays in is some language equivalent to this part: “according to the normal forms and usages of the open-source community”.

That is important because, if it ever comes to a court case, we want to be able to point the judge at that as a clue that there are normal forms and usages and he/she can do what he’s supposed to and almost certainly wants to do by understanding them and applying them.