Contributor agreement

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Stefan Monnier writes:

 > But this issue exists regardless of whether you ever get even close to
 > signing such an agreement.  It could happen even if you've never heard
 > of this agreement and its clauses.

Exactly my point.

 > So if there is a problem, it's in the legal system, which should
 > hopefully lay the burden on Canonical to show that they really did get
 > a valid agreement from you, rather than lay the burden on you to show
 > that you did not sign any such agreement.

It does lay that burden on Canonical.  However, the presumption is
that agreements are valid.  I will *need* to deny it, and if Canonical
chooses not to accept that denial out of court, I lose big.  Think
about it: Canonical clearly thinks those agreements are worth
something.  If there's the kind of trouble that justifies the
existence of an assignment, do you really think they'll accept my
denial at face value?  Or will they pursue it, at least long enough to
be really annoying to me?