On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 7:54 AM, Alex Gaynor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Russell Keith-Magee > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:57 AM, Justin Holmes <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I am interested in getting the SlashRoot membership all filed with >> > CLA's. >> > >> > However, people who work on django at SlashRoot aren't "employees" - >> > they're members. Can we simply change the language of the CLA or are >> > the legal wranglings more complex than that? >> > >> > Might it be simpler for each of us to simply fill out the individual >> > form? Or does that not cover the proper basis of members be able to >> > work on django on paid company time? >> >> I'm not sure that the employee/member distinction that you're making >> here is significant from the point of view of the CLA. We need a >> corporate CLA to cover those jurisdictions where companies implicitly >> or contractually own the work of anyone working for them. Whether >> those people are called "members" or "employees" doesn't really >> matter; we need the corporate entity to release their copyright, and >> enumerate the people covered by that release. >> >> However, it's certainly something worth clarifying. I'd also be wary >> of just altering the language to say "member" -- certain words can be >> loaded when it comes to legal documents, and I don't know the status >> of "member" when it comes to US law. I'll add this to the list of >> things we need to ask the lawyers. It looks like we need to do some >> work here anyway, because in reviewing the corporate CLA to answer >> your question, I noticed that it references a "Schedule B" that >> doesn't exist... >> >> Yours, >> Russ Magee %-) >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Django developers" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. >> > > To be (layman's understanding) the purpose of the corporate CLA is that in > many jurisdictions an employer owns the product of work done by it's > employees, even if it's not done directly as a part of employment. Unless > this same relationship exists between you and your members, you cannot have > such a CLA, because you don't legally own their work and thus can't license > it.
And there's the rub. Is a "member" an "employee" for the purposes of corporate copyright assignment? I can certainly see the argument that you're making, but unfortunately IANAL doesn't get the job done here. :-) Yours, Russ Magee %-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
