Re: [O] New maintainer

[Carsten Dominik]

On 21.4.2013, at 10:06, Jambunathan K <address@hidden> wrote:

> Jambunathan K <address@hidden> 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