Issue with irrevocability clause reference to §8.2 as exception

[silverhook]

@kappapiana noticed in the irrevocability clause a reference to 8.2 as an exception ("except as stated in Section 8.2"), but the 8.2 is an "entire agreement" clause.

Perhaps there is a glitch? In any case we should investigate.

[silverhook]

Using the default settings (= FLA) I located the culprit (emphasis mine):

2.1 Copyright license to Us

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Us a worldwide, royalty-free, exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable (except as stated in Section 8.2) license, with the right to transfer an unlimited number of non-exclusive licenses or to grant sublicenses to third parties, under the Copyright covering the Contribution to use the Contribution by all means, including, but not limited to:
[…]

The §8.2 lies in the §8. Term though (emphasis mine):

8. Term

8.1 This Agreement shall come into effect upon Your acceptance of the terms and conditions.

8.2 This Agreement shall apply for the term of the copyright and patents licensed here. However, You shall have the right to terminate the Agreement if We do not fulfill the obligations as set forth in Section 4. Such termination must be made in writing.

8.3 In the event of a termination of this Agreement Sections 5., 6., 7., 8., and 9. shall survive such termination and shall remain in full force thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt, Free and Open Source Software (sub)licenses that have already been granted for Contributions at the date of the termination shall remain in full force after the termination of this Agreement.

…but this looks OK to me.

@kappapiana, can you help with how you reproduced this issue?

[kappapiana]

Hell if I remember. I can't track it anymore. Guess we should close the issue?

[silverhook]

If you can’t reproduce it, that sounds like the best course of action, yes.

[silverhook]

This was also found by @LeChasseur and I could replicate it as follows (only then the numbering shifts, so the missing is §7.2, same content though):

1. Custom CLA
2. Copyright: Option 5
3. (Patents: whichever option)

On the other hand if I choose the following, it seems fine:

1. Custom CLA
2. Copyright: default
3. (Patents: whichever option)

I did a few different combinations and it seems the one that causes the issue is indeed Copyright: Option 5

[silverhook]

Seems like a technical issue (which causes a legal problem).

I suspect the issue is that the section numbering changes with selecting the copyright option, and it’s not represented in the text (in §2.1). Perhaps a variable there is in order?

[step21]

In this case, afaik it is caused by section 4 being removed. Do you think it could also be solved by including a part that states there is no specific commitment? That would make implementation easier I think. Additionally, when I tried this, I also noticed that 7.2 is removed, which then makes the numbering wrong (as it is missing between 7.1 and 7.3)
The missing part is This Agreement shall apply for the term of the copyright and patents licensed here. However, You shall have the right to terminate the Agreement if We do not fulfill the obligations as set forth in Section 4. Such termination must be made in writing.
Is this correct to be removed?

[step21]

Also referenced here. (closing the other one) #61