Viktor Rosenfeld <listuse...@gmail.com> writes: > Hi Tom, > > Am 17.02.14 22:56, schrieb Thomas S. Dye: > >> 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. > > Thanks for your reply. I was hoping to get some feedback on how other > Orgmode contributors see this issue (although this list is obviously > self-selective). The problem I have is that I'm not a lawyer or a > businessman and not a native English speaker. I do know enough though > not to lightly sign documents I don't fully understand.
Perhaps FSFE would be able to shed some light on the issue (EU-based). Or Software Freedom Conservancy (US-based). I don't have further insights. —Rasmus -- May contains speling mistake