Gianluca Turconi wrote:
> I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
> considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
> at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
> rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
> contribution) and includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva"
> in my language) in the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true
> and somebody else has valid legal rights for the contribution.
>
> A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.
>
Hi Gianluca,
I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your
contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
in such cases... ;)
> Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
>
And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
in this, or comparable, ways.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org
Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
