Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> 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.
