I've contributed a few times for the FSF effort in the past, and I am author of several projects released under open-source licenses, mostly BSD and GPL (v2). I'm proud of my contributions for the free software effort, but, frankly, I'm about to decline any more contributions for the foundation. I'll still release open source software and hardware, because I personally feel that there's a higher chance of my projects to survive if I do, and because I always have benefited from open-source projects, like GNU, the Linux Kernel, and other thousand more projects.
I was not aware of these restrictions to developer freedoms by the very own FSF - which claims everything should be free as in speak. What I read here is that not even the contributors get to hold any rights to *their own* ideas, code, and contributions generally speaking.
I am a fierce defendant of the individual rights. I am a strong defendant of the community progress by individual contributions, but *never*, *never* to put the individual rights in jeopardy.
You cannot transfer authoring rights in most Europe, because if you did, it would be catastrophic. Each photo is (C) its photographer, each song is (C) it's author, although the *usage rights* of the author's outcome can (and, IMHO, should not, but nevermind) be transferred to another entity (the newspaper you work for, your music editor and distributor). If, as it is right now, the music composers receive close to nothing for their creative work, imagine what would be if they gave *all* the rights to the music editors. Not only they would receive close to nothing, probably would have to pay for having their creative work on the shelves.
I am in strong disagreement with FSF, and I blame Stallman for it. I am not willing to contribute (money and moral support) to a foundation that does not respect its members, and their individual rights.
Perhaps it's time to throw a little revolution inside FSF. Or a big one.