[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes

From: Jason Self
Subject: Re: GNU project _does_ discriminate contributors by classes
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 06:26:36 -0700

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 15:04 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> Jason Self <> wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2019-10-29 at 17:43 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote:
> > > 
> > > To the best of my knowledge, thatʼs completely untrue: major GNU
> > > subprojects do discriminate contributors by classes: if a
> > > contributor-to-be happens to be an employee, FSF does not trust
> > > his words about origin of his contribution, he has to bring a
> > > reference from his employer.
> > > 
> > > Speaking frankly, even if we put aside how time-consuming it may
> > > be, itʼs hard for me to imagine what can be more degrading and
> > > thus ‘alienating’ to someone, than a straightaway demand to
> > > prove that he is not a liar.
> > I believe this to be a mischaracterization of the situation.
> > 
> > This is related to the copyright assignment mentioned earlier. As
> > an example, some have employment contracts with wording to the
> > effect that "anything you ever do anywhere ever always belongs to
> > us no matter what." People with such employment contracts aren't
> > able to assign the copyright for their work because it was never
> > theirs to begin with and the employer needs to do so. The
> > information at [0] mentions this that "we ***may*** also need an
> > employer’s disclaimer..." because...
> ...FSF does not believe in GNU contributorsʼ honesty?

Um, no - that's not the case as I explained. Your original message had
that if any contributor-to-be happens to be an employee they would
need to get something from their employer. I'm quoting the "may" piece
exactly because it says "may" and not "must" because not all
situations will be the same. It's merely a case of getting the
copyright assignment from the actual holder of the copyright, whether
that's the individual or their employer based on whatever the
situation is.

> Could you elaborate, if thatʼs not a secret?  Did you not have to
> get one, because some paper already was in your possession and you
> send a copy of it?

They took my word for it and I never turned in anything. I did not
need to take any additional steps to "prove" anything. My direct
firsthand experience directly conflicts with what you allege to be the

P.S.; there's no need to address the message to me directly - I am on
the list.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]