What is the difference between source code escrow and timestamping?

What does source code escrow provide?

Escrow gives a software customer an agreed route to obtain source code if specified events occur. The supplier deposits the code and supporting materials with an independent agent. The agreement identifies the beneficiary, the release conditions and the procedure for requesting and disputing release.

Possible triggers include insolvency, discontinuation of maintenance or failure to meet agreed support obligations. The actual contract determines which events count and what happens next; release is not automatic whenever the customer is dissatisfied.

Receiving source code also does not automatically transfer copyright. The relevant agreements must define what the customer may do with the released materials, such as maintaining the application internally or appointing another developer.

What does timestamping provide instead?

Timestamping connects a cryptographic fingerprint of the code to a recorded time. It can provide evidence that the corresponding version existed by that time without publishing the code or giving a customer access to it.

That evidence can help identify a development milestone or distinguish one version from another. It does not establish by itself who wrote the code, who owns it or whether it works. Nor does a timestamp contain a recoverable copy of the source code: you must preserve the files to verify them later.

These benefits are not limited to the author. A supplier, customer or escrow agent can use dated evidence to identify a particular package of materials.

Why is depositing the code not enough for continuity?

A deposit is useful only if it contains what someone needs to take over the software. Source files may be insufficient without build instructions, compatible tools, dependencies, configuration and technical documentation. For a hosted application, restoring service may also require operational data and access to infrastructure.

Verification should therefore match the intended recovery task. Checking that a deposit contains readable files is different from demonstrating that another team can build and run the application in an independent environment. Escrow services offer different levels of testing; the agreement should specify the level required and how often deposits and checks are updated.

Timestamp verification answers a different question: whether the files match the dated proof. A successful cryptographic check does not establish that the deposited software can be rebuilt or operated.

Can timestamping and escrow be used together?

Yes. Timestamping the exact deposit package creates a dated reference for the materials, while escrow provides custody and the contractual release mechanism.

Keep the deposit receipt or acknowledgement linking that package to the escrow agent. A timestamp alone does not prove that the agent received or accepted it. When a new version is deposited, preserve its own proof and receipt so the history of deposits remains clear.

Which do you need?

Start with the problem you need to solve:

• You need evidence of a particular software version at a particular time: timestamping can support that record, alongside the files and development context.
• You need access to a supplier’s code if support ends: an escrow arrangement can address that contingency, with appropriate release rights and recovery testing.
• You need both continuity and a verifiable history of deposited versions: combine the two, making sure each deposit is clearly linked to its dated evidence.

A backup, a timestamp and an escrow agreement perform different jobs. Keeping a copy preserves the material; timestamping adds dated evidence; escrow governs another party’s access under agreed conditions.