From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan L Tyree Subject: Re: [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core? Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:32:59 +1100 Message-ID: <5306829B.10400@gmail.com> References: <878uueciku.fsf@gmail.com> <55F46D73-2430-4831-ABE9-D66AE03647E7@gmail.com> <878ut5zzdl.fsf@gmx.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50956) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGcB7-0006tE-Gv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:33:18 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGcAz-0005Dt-5O for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:33:13 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22e]:50525) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGcAy-0005DS-UN for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 17:33:05 -0500 Received: by mail-pd0-f174.google.com with SMTP id z10so2399917pdj.5 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:33:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.1] (202.63.32.163.static.rev.eftel.com. [202.63.32.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id iq10sm14694034pbc.14.2014.02.20.14.33.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:33:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <878ut5zzdl.fsf@gmx.us> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On 21/02/14 00:29, Rasmus wrote: > Viktor Rosenfeld writes: > >> Hi Tom, >> >> Am 17.02.14 22:56, schrieb Thomas S. Dye: >> >>> FWIW, as a small businessman, the indemnification clause looks fairly >>> standard to me. The contracts for archaeological services that we >>> routinely sign typically have a clause like this, usually coupled with a >>> request for a certificate of insurance that specifies the levels of >>> liability insurance that the business carries. >>> >>> As I read the clause, FSF is in the position of accepting 1) a code >>> contribution from a developer, and 2) the developer's assurance that the >>> contributed code can't be claimed as property by a third party. It >>> seems prudent that, in the event of a successful property claim by a >>> third party to a piece of code contributed by a developer, the developer >>> who gave the false assurance should be held responsible. Otherwise, FSF >>> might be brought down by copyleft opponents who knowingly contribute >>> code to which others have property rights in order to create a basis for >>> lawsuits. >> Thanks for your reply. I was hoping to get some feedback on how other >> Orgmode contributors see this issue (although this list is obviously >> self-selective). The problem I have is that I'm not a lawyer or a >> businessman and not a native English speaker. I do know enough though >> not to lightly sign documents I don't fully understand. > Perhaps FSFE would be able to shed some light on the issue (EU-based). > Or Software Freedom Conservancy (US-based). I don't have further > insights. > > —Rasmus > FWIW, most book publishing contracts that I have seen have something similar. An example: "The Authors warrant to the Publishers that the Work will in no way whatever violate any existing Copyright (except as notified under Clause 7(b)), and that it will contain nothing of a libellous or scandalous character. The Authors shall indemnify the Publishers against any claims, actions, loss or damage including costs and expenses incurred by the Publishers as a result of any breach of the present warranty." I imagine that quite a few members of this list have signed something similar. Cheers, Alan -- Alan L Tyree http://www2.austlii.edu.au/~alan Tel: 04 2748 6206 sip:typhoon@iptel.org