Re: [O] [RFC] Move ox-koma-letter into core?

[Thomas S. Dye]

Aloha Viktor,

Viktor Rosenfeld <address@hidden> 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