Jason Self <js...@gnu.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 17:43 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> To the best of my knowledge, thatʼs completely untrue: major GNU subprojects >> do discriminate contributors by classes: if a contributor-to-be happens to >> be an employee, FSF does not trust his words about origin of his >> contribution, he has to bring a reference from his employer. >> >> Speaking frankly, even if we put aside how time-consuming it may be, itʼs >> hard for me to imagine what can be more degrading and thus ‘alienating’ to >> someone, than a straightaway demand to prove that he is not a liar. > > I believe this to be a mischaracterization of the situation. > > This is related to the copyright assignment mentioned earlier. As an example, > some have employment contracts with wording to the effect that "anything you > ever do anywhere ever always belongs to us no matter what." People with such > employment contracts aren't able to assign the copyright for their work > because it was never theirs to begin with and the employer needs to do so. > The information at [0] mentions this that "we ***may*** also need an > employer’s disclaimer..." because...
...FSF does not believe in GNU contributorsʼ honesty? > it is not required for all situations of all people with employers (with your > "if a contributor-to-be happens to be an employee" statement.) I did not have > to get one, for example, even though I am employed because I am not in such a > situation. Could you elaborate, if thatʼs not a secret? Did you not have to get one, because some paper already was in your possession and you send a copy of it?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
