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.