Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Mar 7, 2008, at 11:07 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Friday 07 March 2008 16:39, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
So the CCLA exists for those who's employment agreements would otherwise
cause them to violate their claims made via their CLA contract.
Uhhh.... So, are we now saying that heaps of people don't need to get
the CCLA
from their employer? I thought the CCLA was the "belt and suspenders" to
ensure that the employee has the right that he claims. Otherwise, why
is the
CCLA a matter between the employer and ASF, and not a standard
document to be
signed between the employer and employee, for the employee to keep.
Because it is more politically correct (easier for the employee) if the paper
says it is coming from the ASF, it is a lot easier for the employer to
understand why another corporation would need that permission, and it is
a lot less likely to be "lost" if it is recorded with a third party.
The employee can (and should) keep a copy for themselves in their own
records.
Exactly; not every computer professional to walk in to their boss/client
and say "hey - I want to invent software for us, and publish it however
I like". But it's feasible to say "hey - we could accomplish x, y and z
if I was contributing changes to this code we use to the ASF, but I need
this agreement signed off since my employment agreement / work for hire
ownership issues are in my way from doing that".
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
