Re: Basic legal question: Publication of a fix to psgml

[phillip.lord@newcastle.ac.uk (Phillip Lord)]

Andreas Röhler <andreas.roehler@easy-emacs.de> writes:

>> For example, there could arise severe damage if some malicious company
>> (you name it) suddenly claimed that central pieces of GNU software were
>> contributed (maybe years ago) by some of their employees without
>> employer's permission.
>>
>
> In which way a CA-paper could avoid that?
> What about the opposite danger: a company signs, provides crucial parts and withdraws CA?
> See current discussions at emacs-devel on a lower scale.


It doesn't. It's the employer disclaimer of rights that avoids this. 

Of course, this doesn't avoid the problem entirely; I mean, the
disclaimer could be a fake. The employer could claim the person who
signed it didn't have the right to. The law could change entirely,
meaning that the entire world is now owned by Facebook, Google or
Microsoft. 

It's about due diligence. The FSF is taking reasonable steps to ensure
that it can carry out it's mission. This all sounds sensible to me. 
If unfortunate; I don't think anyone would argue that its not a pain in
the ass. 

Phil