[gnu.org #1880318] Antoni Boucher, modified employer disclaimer

[gnu.org #1880318] Antoni Boucher, modified employer disclaimer

[Craig Topham via RT]

On 2023-02-28 17:44:55, bouanto@zoho.com wrote:
> Hi.
> Here is the document signed.
> Thank you.
> 
My apologies, I was unexpectedly out the last couple of days. This has been resolved and you are clear to contribute with the new employer disclaimer in place.

Thank you for your patience and I appreciate you following through.

~Craig


> On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 15:29 -0500, Craig Topham via RT wrote:
> > On 2023-02-27 10:33:46, bouanto@zoho.com wrote:
> > > Hi.
> > > Any update on this?
> > > Regards.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yes. The adaptation seems fine indeed, but there a couple of small
> > issues with the text:
> > 
> > then the Free Software Foundation and the general public will be
> > permanently and irrevocably licensed solely as necessary to use,
> > distribute, and permit modifications by anyone, the contributions as
> > originally authored by Antoni Bouche in
> > these works in the Released Categories of programs they enhance,
> > withoutroyalty or limitation, the subject matter of the dominating
> > interest.
> > 
> > -- there should be a "to" after anyone and I would probably leave out
> > the comma too.
> > -- Boucher
> > -- without royalty
> > 
> > If you can get these corrected and print/sign the disclaimer we
> > should be good to go.
> > 
> > ~Craig
> > 
> > 
> > > On Tue, 2023-02-14 at 21:51 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > Hi.
> > > > They change the text.
> > > > I attached the new version.
> > > > Does that look correct?
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, 2023-01-30 at 16:01 -0500, Craig Topham via RT wrote:
> > > > > On 2023-01-30 09:27:02, bouanto@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > Any news on this?
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, 2022-12-13 at 13:58 -0500, Craig Topham via RT wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-12-13 10:24:30, bouanto@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > > Is there any progress here?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > We have made some progress. However, there is some other
> > > > > language
> > > > > that concerns us. In the second to last paragraph it reads,
> > > > > "...solely as necessary to use the contributions as originally
> > > > > authored...".
> > > > > 
> > > > > As stated, it would only cover your original contributions
> > > > > unedited.
> > > > > Therefore, versions of your contributions edited by other
> > > > > developers
> > > > > would not be covered by this disclaimer. Can you request to
> > > > > have
> > > > > this
> > > > > language changed?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Assuming this can be corrected there is no other language in
> > > > > the
> > > > > disclaimer that concerns us, so we could proceed with accepting
> > > > > this
> > > > > disclaimer.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thank you again for working through this process.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ~Craig
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > Thank you for the ping. I have no new updates at this time
> > > > > > > except
> > > > > > > that the removal of the problematic sentence allows us to
> > > > > > > look
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > other language in the disclaimer. I am glad to say yours is
> > > > > > > next
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > be reviewed. Please feel free to ping me at any time for an
> > > > > > > update.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ~Craig
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 12:08 -0500, Antoni Boucher wrote:
> > > > > > > > > They're ok with removing that sentence.
> > > > > > > > > Do you have any news from the legal counsel?
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 16:02 -0500, Craig Topham via RT
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 2022-11-22 09:52:51, bouanto@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > > > > > I got the answer to that question from my company:
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > >    Since this is an FSF form, once we sign the
> > > > > > > > > > > disclaimer, it
> > > > > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > >    binding between the parties even though there is
> > > > > > > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > > > > signature
> > > > > > > > > > > field
> > > > > > > > > > >    for FSF. The language itself would be sufficient
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > binding
> > > > > > > > > > >    between the parties.
> > > > > > > > > > >    
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Thank you for clarifying. I know we will be able to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > > > > through
> > > > > > > > > > this, but that sentence as written would allow
> > > > > > > > > > ServiceNow
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > violate
> > > > > > > > > > the licenses of GNU packages while preventing the FSF
> > > > > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > > > > enforcing
> > > > > > > > > > the GPL. We simply can't agree to that. I understand
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > intent
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > have mutual obligations, but is there a way it can be
> > > > > > > > > > worded
> > > > > > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > doesn't strip us of our ability to enforce the GPL?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > ~Craig
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > "FSF affirms that it will not assert against
> > > > > > > > > > ServiceNow
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > > > > > > > patent,
> > > > > > > > > > copyright, or other proprietary interest related to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > software,
> > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > that it will not assist a third party to do so."
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Regards.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2022-11-08 at 16:50 -0500, Craig Topham via
> > > > > > > > > > > RT
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-10-25 16:02:24, bouanto@zoho.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Here's their explanation of that sentence:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    This is a standard non-assertion covenant,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    similar to the next paragraph where FSF has
> > > > > > > > > > > > > included
> > > > > > > > > > > > > similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    language
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    (“ServiceNow affirms that it will do nothing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > future
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    undermine
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    this release……..”). As such, our intent is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > mutual
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    obligations
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    on both parties. However, please let me know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > FSF or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > legal
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    team
> > > > > > > > > > > > >    have any concerns with this language – I’m
> > > > > > > > > > > > > happy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > discuss.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Antoni,
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Something that doesn't make sense to me (but I am
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > lawyer),
> > > > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that the FSF isn't signing this document, so I
> > > > > > > > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > language would apply to the FSF. I don't think
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > act
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > > > accepting the document, legally binds us to it
> > > > > > > > > > > > (again,
> > > > > > > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > lawyer).
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > There may be a ready answer for this from your
> > > > > > > > > > > > end,
> > > > > > > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > > > > might
> > > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > > worth pointing it out and asking. Would you be
> > > > > > > > > > > > willing
> > > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > ask?
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > ~Craig
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 


-- 
All the best,

Craig Topham
Copyright & Licensing Associate
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: +1-617-542-5942
Fax: +1-617-542-2652
Email: craigt@fsf.org
GPG key: 36C9 950D 2F68 254E D89C 7C03 F9C1 3A10 581A B853

Join the FSF and help us defend software freedom: https://my.fsf.org/

Registration for "LibrePlanet 2023: Charting the Course" is open: https://libreplanet.org/2023/