From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) Subject: Re: [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core? Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 11:56:23 -1000 Message-ID: References: <878uueciku.fsf@gmail.com> <55F46D73-2430-4831-ABE9-D66AE03647E7@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46634) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFWB7-0003FF-1t for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:56:47 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFWB0-0005Mz-1H for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:56:40 -0500 Received: from oproxy18-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com ([69.89.17.20]:48806) by eggs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFWAz-0005Lr-Pm for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:56:33 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Viktor Rosenfeld's message of "Mon, 17 Feb 2014 20:10:47 +0100") 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: Viktor Rosenfeld Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Aloha Viktor, Viktor Rosenfeld writes: > Also, my view of the document, as I understand it, is that it's very > one-sided and unfair to the developer, specifically the future works > and indemnification clauses. For the record, I will not sign a > document containing the indemnification clause as it currently stands. 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. >From my point of view, the problem is the extent to which property rights structure relationships in our society--an extent unprecedented in history. I applaud FSF for its efforts to create computer software to which we all have a claim not to be excluded from its use or enjoyment. All the best, Tom -- Thomas S. Dye http://www.tsdye.com