Contributor agreement

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ben Finney writes:

 > Have you looked at the copyright assignment the FSF requests of
 > contributors? (I have not.) It might be instructive to compare
 > them.

The FSF agreement I signed (many years ago) is very similar, and has a
clause similar to 5.  That clause refers specifically to enforcement
of rights, not to perfection etc.  I'm not sure what that difference
means in practice, if anything.  The main differences AFAICS are in
clause 6.  Where Canonical's clause 6 makes no enforceable promises
AIUI, the FSF promises that if there is a distribution to anyone, it
will be under a free software license.  OTOH, in the FSF's agreement
you indemnify the FSF for damages and legal expenses in any case where
statements you make turn out to be incorrect, while Canonical's 8-10
imply such responsibility on your part but clause 6 says Canonical
pays for legal expenses incurred under the agreement, while "to the
best of my knowledge" implies you have no financial responsibility in
the case of an honest mistake on your part.

Finally, there may be a whole raft of differences concealed in the
jurisdiction clause: FSF is Massachusetts, USA, while Canonical is
England and Wales.

The FSF agreement also refers to "good and valuable consideration" of
one US dollar which neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever
received. :-(

Probably most of the details of the FSF agreement has changed in more
or less important ways in the interim.  The FSF also had at that time
several slightly different agreements, of different vintages, and the
wording of the giveback clause was quite different among them.