| |||||||||||||
The critical part is the employer disclaimerThe critical part is the employer disclaimerPosted May 24, 2004 5:49 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Differences from GNU by mbp Parent article: Linus on documenting patch provenance The most important paperwork that the FSF asks for from contributors is not the copyright assignment; it is the employer disclaimer. This prevents the company from later claiming that the employee's contribution was unauthorized, or that it is "work done for hire" and therefore the employee had no right to contribute it. Also, both the contributor and the employer promise not to bring a patent infringment claim later against the contributed-to program.
(Log in to post comments)
The critical part is the employer disclaimer Posted May 24, 2004 6:00 UTC (Mon) by mbp (subscriber, #2737) [Link] You're right, that is an issue too. I suppose under Linus's system, he can claim that he acted in good faith in trusting the employee though. I would expect that if it turned out there was a problem, Linus might have to remove the code but that would be the limit of his liability.I was a little surprised that Linus didn't ask people to certify that the contribution is free of patent problems to the best of their knowledge. I would guess that the reason for both of these is that they require the company's legal department to get involved in all contributions, which would tend to slow things down. Of course the legal department *should* be involved in at least setting policy, but that is mostly a matter between the company and their employees.
The critical part is the employer disclaimer Posted May 24, 2004 7:38 UTC (Mon) by MathFox (guest, #6104) [Link] I was a little surprised that Linus didn't ask people to certify that the contribution is free of patent problems to the best of their knowledge.Don't forget that Linus is an European and that software patents are still unenforcable there. For him patents weren't a problem, he could make and distribute the first versions of Linux without a risk of running into patent problems. This also indicates that a declaration "I am unaware of patent problems" doesn't tell you a lot: For which countries is that declaration valid? How serious was the patent research? The only thing an "I'm unaware" declaration says with certainly is "I won't sue you for my own contribution". And the GPL implies that allready.
The critical part is the employer disclaimer Posted May 24, 2004 11:31 UTC (Mon) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] An "I am unaware of patent problems" declaration is not worth spit in ANYcountry. Also, if you don't believe in software patents, making them appear important is not a good idea.
The critical part is the employer disclaimer Posted May 24, 2004 20:22 UTC (Mon) by erwbgy (subscriber, #4104) [Link] I love this quote from Linus (in this month's Linux User and Developer):"I do not look up any patents on principle, because (a) it's a horrible waste of time and (b) I don't want to know. The fact is, technical people are better off not looking at patents. If you don't know what they cover and where they are, you won't be knowingly infringing on them. If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a hitman to whack the stupid git." He later noted that this "may not be legally tenable advice" :-)
The critical part is the employer disclaimer Posted May 25, 2004 0:27 UTC (Tue) by mbp (subscriber, #2737) [Link] Linus may have been born in Europe but he lives and works in California.
|
|||||||||||||