From: Thorsten Behrens <email@example.com>
Gianluca Turconi wrote:
I've already suggested that if the copyright assignment is
considered a too heavy burden, it should be asked to the contributor
at least a statement that clearly affirms his/her absolute copyright
rights for the contribution (nobody else can claim nothing about the
contribution) and includes a indemnity clause ("clausola di manleva"
in my language) in the unlucky case what he/she stated it isn't true
and somebody else has valid legal rights for the contribution.
A "no signature involved, whatsoever" approach is just too risky, IMO.
I respect your opinion - alas, I have a different one. For your
specific example, if someone submits code to LibO, stating in her
mail "I license this under LGPLv3+ / MPL", and that later turns out
to be false pretense, that gives you about as much leverage against
the contributor as if she signs extra documents (at least for all
practical matters. Sure, you can include huge damages in that legal
document - but would have to extract it, from a potential
independent contributor, in the first place). Sueing your
contributor, in any way, is most likely the lesser of your worries
in such cases... ;)
Of course, distributors *can* risk if they want.
And they do. Large portions of the typical Linux stack are developed
in this, or comparable, ways.
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy