ken...@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: >> That is not unlimited liability. That clause says that if you >> contribute code which you do not own to the FSF, and the correct owner >> of the code sues the FSF, and wins the court case, and the FSF is >> forced to pay damages to the true owner, then you are legally >> responsible to cover the FSF's costs, both the costs of damages and >> the cost of litigation. > > Yes, but there is no limit to the "costs of damages and the cost > of litigation". THAT'S the concern being expressed.
But, as I outlined, there is a limit. This is not patents. This is copyright. Copyright law does not provide for unlimited damages. I agree that there is no limit specified in the assignment, but there is a limit in reality. >> So, if you screw up badly, there is liability, yes. > > To me, that's the point. This clause only operates if the person > doing the assignment did something improper. HOWEVER, there IS a > legitimate issue: suppose an employee develops a patch and submits it > to the FSF. Unknown to the company, the employee actually stole the code > from a third party. But it's the COMPANY that's indemnifying the FSF. > Yes, it can sue its employee and get a judgement in the amount it has to > pay the FSF, but most likely the employee couldn't pay such a judgement. > So you do have a situation here where the company is being forced to > trust its employee. I would not argue that people should not try to talk the FSF out of this position. On the other hand, many companies have apparently had no trouble signing this. Ian
