On 21.4.2013, at 10:06, Jambunathan K <kjambunat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. This discussion is now considered off-topic for this list. Please take it elsewhere. - Carsten