From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rasmus Subject: Re: [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core? Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:29:10 +0100 Message-ID: <878ut5zzdl.fsf@gmx.us> References: <878uueciku.fsf@gmail.com> <55F46D73-2430-4831-ABE9-D66AE03647E7@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35056) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGTfN-0002DS-5k for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:28:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGTfF-0004uM-S1 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:27:53 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:57606) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WGTfF-0004u9-HW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 08:27:45 -0500 Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WGTfD-00072f-JO for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:27:43 +0100 Received: from 109.201.154.143 ([109.201.154.143]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:27:43 +0100 Received: from rasmus by 109.201.154.143 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:27:43 +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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org 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 -- May contains speling mistake