From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: New maintainer
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 14:41:20 +0200
Message-ID: <6AB1AEDA-F11E-422B-AE80-7965F7496120@gmail.com>
References: <87a9ovye43.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <871ua7zrvt.fsf@gmail.com>
	<CA+M2ft9K2a3_g=tpKxXegZ1ke0YseMMP4YrHg7gWNCVFN9iyqQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<87y5cfvgym.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87ppxru1j9.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87obdbboxd.fsf@breezy.my.home> <878v4fsius.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87d2tqsz1t.fsf@thinkpad.tsdh.de> <8761zhvdm3.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87y5cccnpr.fsf@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53847)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>) id 1UTta8-0005fz-I7
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:41:26 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <carsten.dominik@gmail.com>) id 1UTta7-0002qt-Gs
	for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:41:24 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87y5cccnpr.fsf@gmail.com>
List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." <emacs-orgmode.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-orgmode@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode>,
	<mailto:emacs-orgmode-request@gnu.org?subject=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: Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com>
Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Tassilo Horn <tsdh@gnu.org>


On 21.4.2013, at 10:06, Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Jambunathan K <kjambunathan@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> Well, the FSF's intention here is to make sure that contributors report
>>> back when they change employers, and the new employer doesn't want that
>>> his employees contribute to some GNU project (maybe because that project
>>> is in the same business as the company).  So I think of that more of a
>>> safety measure in order not to run into long-running, painful
>>> lawsuits.
> 
> You are missing out an important aspect - that of "enforcement".  An
> organization will most likely "choose to enforce" but an RJH (like me)
> won't.
> 
> That is, the employer can (presumably) send his lawyer to a the court
> with the employment contract and say
> 
>    "Employee can assign rights (and FSF can very well accept it).  But
>     the assignation has no legal validity because it is not within
>     employee's right to do so.  Employee himself agreed that he will
>     abide by <whatever> while on our pay.  We are asserting and
>     enforcing our position now."
> 
> For an assignment to have legal validity, multiple parties - FSF,
> contributor and contributor's employer - should *converge*.
> 
> When there is no convergence of *all* parties , the "assignment" stands
> on weaker grounds.
> 
> Standing on weaker ground is precisely what FSF wants to avoid at all
> costs.
> 
> Jambunathan K.

This discussion is now considered off-topic for this list.
Please take it elsewhere.

- Carsten