From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viktor Rosenfeld Subject: Re: [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core? Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:33:19 +0100 Message-ID: References: <878uueciku.fsf@gmail.com> <55F46D73-2430-4831-ABE9-D66AE03647E7@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55042) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGDpy-0005LC-JK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:33:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGDpr-0003Cz-9K for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:33:46 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:59397) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGDpr-0003Cq-2D for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:33:39 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WGDpj-00074q-Jw for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:33:31 +0100 Received: from 46.228.204.148 ([46.228.204.148]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:33:31 +0100 Received: from listuser36 by 46.228.204.148 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:33:31 +0100 In-Reply-To: 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 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. At this point, I'm considering to actually get proper legal advice about this form, because I'm not satisfied in the state of affairs where I have stopped participating in the Orgmode community because I do not understand the copyright assignment form. Cheers, Viktor