Quoting Simon Hobson (linux@???):

> So given the hypothetical case where Exampleco "takes over"* a project
> with the sole desire of burying it, the worst (effectively) that any
> of the copyright holders in that code could do is have a court order
> that Exampleco cease distribution of the code or any derived works.

And potentially get some ordered monetary damages, yes.

(Aside from the above, as we know, one nice thing about open source
development is that any defunct project can be revived at any time by
sufficiently motivated coders, if they can find legacy code. So, a
moneyed interest 'taking over' such a codebase to bury it cannot be
assured of success provided anyone outside that firm cares enough and
can acquire an old tarball. As I said, this is what gave us OpenSSH.)

> Thus if Exampleco "takes over"* the project and any repositories
> holding the code, they can kill it, and effectively there's nothing
> anyone can do using copyright law.

If they eliminate _all_ repositories, yes.

Moral: If you care that an open source project persist, it's extremely
helpful that its codebase exist in multiple independent places. In this
regard, I think occasionally about the harm that will happen some day
when Sourceforge.net gets shut down. It was founded by my old firm VA
Linux Systems to extend the concept of the 'Trove' software
classification system with infrastructure to support projects, _but_
VA Linux Systems is long gone, and the site was picked up for pennies
by a firm with an extremely different agenda and a troubling history of
interference, Dice Holdings. Point is, one day: Poof.

This has already happened once with a related property, Freshmeat.net, that
was reworked at the hands of some brain-dead Web designers and rebranded
as 'Freecode.com' _with almost all prior contents deleted_. Quite a
number of open source projects ceased to exist at that time. SF.net
will, but contrast, be a Great Extinction.

And this is because too many people are just relying on it continuing to
be there. They really ought to stop thinking that way.


> However, if the aim is to add halloween code and kill all prior
> versions, then anyone with standing** can go to court and ask for an
> order preventing redistribution of any derived works.

Derivative works, please. (Kindly indulge a poor pedant.)

Successful civil litigation involves (among other things) both standing
and a _cause of action_. I.e., for Otherco to successfully sue
Exampleco alleging the tort of copyright violation, Exampleco really
needs to have _committed_ copyright violation.

Exampleco deleting all prior versions from its Internet repos doesn't
violate Otherco's copyright. Exampleco then releasing a new version
devoted to commiting sundry great evils also doesn't violate Otherco's
copyright -- _provided_ Exampleco complies[1] with Otherco's stated
conditions for access to Otherco's exclusive rights.

In general, a copyright owner releasing a codebase instance under an
open source licence (such as Otherco did in this example) means the
copyright holder is foregoing all future control over the purposes to
which other people put that code and its derivatives.


> So while they still can't force Exampleco to provide sources for the
> current or previous versions, they can prevent Exampleco from
> "profiting" from control over it.

I'm not sure I see this.

As long as Exampleco complies with Otherco's licensing conditions,
Otherco has no power to object to Exampleco's actions in court -- at
least not on copyright grounds.

In general, the real remedy open source gives the world to the problem
of 'I don't like what $PERSON is doing with this codebase' is for you
to do something _different_ with that codebase. The combination of
licensing and code access gives you the opportunity. All you have to do
is the hard work. Open source makes said hard work an option.

> And suddenly I see another musing forming from the ether ... Isn't
> there one of the "free software advocacy groups" (for want of a better
> description) that asks contributors to assign their copyright in stuff
> they submit to it's projects to them ? Lets call them GoodCo ... As
> above, if GoodCo turn bad - or are somehow co-erced....

Free Software Foundation is a charitable corporation chartered under
Commonwealth of Massachussetts law in 1985 that is required by its
articles of incorporation and by-laws to 'encourage, foster, and promote
the free exchange of computer software and information relating to
computers and other technlogy; distribute and disseminate software and
information related to computers and other technology, and increase the
public's access to computers and high technology devices.

http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-incorporate.pdf
http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/fsf-amended-bylaws-current.pdf

The FSF corporation is constrained by state law to remain true to the
objectives declared in its articles of incorporation. It is
further constrained to remain focussed on its declared charitable
purpose almost exclusively, by its acquisition of recognition as a
non-profit charitable corporation by the USA's Internal Revenue service
under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3), _the_ most strongly
enforced and rigidly constraining of all USA non-profit tax entity
categories.


Mr. Mark Shuttleworth of Canonical, Ltd., a limited liability
for-profit corporation chartered in the Isle of Man for tax-avoidance
purposes, has frequently attempted to justify his firm's requirement of
a 'Contributor Licence Agreement' [sic] (what is in fact an assignment
to the corporation of copyright title under a deceptive name) for all
code contributions, by saying it's just like what FSF requests.

Mais non, Monsieur Shuttleworth: FSF is tightly constrained to its
public benefit purpose, and cannot even in bankruptcy pass along its
assets except to a similar public benefit charitable corporation, _and_
the world trusts Mr. Stallman and his charitable non-profit corporation
to be, if anything, annoyingly and fanatically consistent in advancing
free software -- in exactly the way the world has _no_ reason to trust
Mr. Shuttleworth and his tax-dodging for-profit corporation.


> (maybe they've gone bankrupt etc)

See above.


> So, one part of "securing" open software is for all contributors to
> keep their copyright.

Yes, quite.

This is one reason why entities requiring software copyright assignment
are _in general_ treated with great skepticism, e.g., Canonical, Ltd.
and Oracle Corporation (continuing Sun Microsystems policies). The
natural question is '_Why_ are you requesting sole copyright ownership?'

The natural suspicion is that the company in question envisions in the
future wishing to have both proprietary and open-source instances, and
use the latter as a limited-functionality, less-polished demo to drive
sales of the latter. (As noted, FSF cannot be reasonably suspected of
this, not even in bankruptcy or other theoretical 'takeover' fantasy
scenarios.)

I should stress that many coders are perfectly fine with that, such as
the entire BSD community. But the point is to make this choice
consciously rather than accepting Shuttleworth-style deceptive rhetoric
about how 'Oh, we're just trying to keep things simple and make sure we
are able to act decisively to enforce the licence.'

However, even an open source codebase over which a single, evil-leaning
commercial entity owns sole copyright can be forked at any time. By
anyone. All you need is code access and an appropriate licence.

That's the whole point of open source.