[lakecresva]

What you seem to want is pro bono representation, which is just not what they're offering. It's apples to oranges. Achieving something that approaches your idea of fairness would require negotiation and the maintenance of an ongoing legally significant relationship. I don't know much about the politics of the SF Conservancy, but the language in the contract they're offering does not jump out as especially unfair or extreme. Accounting for details like successors in interest is how lawyers write tight contracts.

[blagie]

No, pro bono representation would mean I'd get the damages. I'm supportive of SFC getting the damages.

What I want -- both for myself and for the community -- is checks-and-balances to make sure SFC continues doing things in the interest of myself, and more broadly, of the community. A single entity holding a pile of copyrights to FLOSS, with no checks-and-balances, is a liability to the community.

I lose respect for an organization in this business who doesn't understand checks-and-balances and oversight.