[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: gentoo-project
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Groups under the Council or Foundation: the structure & processes thereof
From: Alec Warner <antarus () gentoo ! org>
Date: 2016-11-14 0:15:05
Message-ID: CAAr7Pr-PzbJ9nVBot+AYD02CBO+bp9yPs=1An7bPjMY4Srs-PA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 13/11/2016 23:33, Raymond Jennings wrote:
> > My personal opinion here is that *anything* to do with legal issues,
> > such as legal liability, no matter how theoretical, is something the
> > trustees should be involved in.
>
> I already enumerated the situations that would involve the foundation.
>
> On the contrary of companies that can be sued if somebody hired by them
> harasses or worse another person within the company, the foundation,
> being unrelated to the Gentoo community barring acting as a piggy bank,
> cannot be sued.
>
> There isn't any specific requirement for that and there isn't any
> contract that ties the people volunteering their free time to do
> something in Gentoo with the foundation (since the copyright assignment
> got killed as I mentioned before).
>
I think I disagree with you here. However, I suspect the risk is minimal
and can be mitigated by carrying the appropriate insurance. For instance,
if we look at say, Debian.
1) SPI contains the funds for Debian.
2) SPI contains the copyright and trademarks for Debian.
3) Does SPI control the policies of Debian in the same way?
4) What insurance (if any) does SPI carry to mitigate this risk (or perhaps
their lawyers claim there are none.)
I'm not aware of trustees seeking legal council on this issue, so I want to
avoid making metastructure proposals based on laymen risk assessment. I
think if the trustees are worried about risk, they can hire an attorney to
evaluate such risk. If the risk is great, at least we have some kind of
legal argument (e.g. we pursue the meta-structure changes on the advice of
legal council.) So that is how I plan on moving forward.
>
> > Per my own dev quiz, the foundation's job is to worry about legal
> > issues (lawsuits, copyrights, etc) and financial issues (donations,
> > server hardware) so that the codemonkey developers don't have to.
>
> Even copyright is a gray area thanks to the fact a large deal of
> developers lives in Europe.
>
> > That is why I CCed the trustees when the logo stuff on third party
> > sites came up. I don't think there's any conspiracy to keep the
> > trustees in the dark, but I *do* perceive a lack of communication.
>
> The fact trustees have no mean to peek in / influence Council or Comrel
> shields the foundation from lawsuits.
>
> lu
>
>
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov \
13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Luca Barbato <span dir="ltr"><<a \
href="mailto:lu_zero@gentoo.org" target="_blank">lu_zero@gentoo.org</a>></span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 13/11/2016 23:33, Raymond Jennings \
wrote:<br> > My personal opinion here is that *anything* to do with legal \
issues,<br> > such as legal liability, no matter how theoretical, is something \
the<br> > trustees should be involved in.<br>
<br>
</span>I already enumerated the situations that would involve the foundation.<br>
<br>
On the contrary of companies that can be sued if somebody hired by them<br>
harasses or worse another person within the company, the foundation,<br>
being unrelated to the Gentoo community barring acting as a piggy bank,<br>
cannot be sued.<br>
<br>
There isn't any specific requirement for that and there isn't any<br>
contract that ties the people volunteering their free time to do<br>
something in Gentoo with the foundation (since the copyright assignment<br>
got killed as I mentioned before).<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think I \
disagree with you here. However, I suspect the risk is minimal and can be mitigated \
by carrying the appropriate insurance. For instance, if we look at say, \
Debian.</div><div><br></div><div>1) SPI contains the funds for Debian.</div><div>2) \
SPI contains the copyright and trademarks for Debian.</div><div>3) Does SPI control \
the policies of Debian in the same way?</div><div>4) What insurance (if any) does SPI \
carry to mitigate this risk (or perhaps their lawyers claim there are \
none.)</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not aware of trustees seeking legal council \
on this issue, so I want to avoid making metastructure proposals based on laymen risk \
assessment. I think if the trustees are worried about risk, they can hire an attorney \
to evaluate such risk. If the risk is great, at least we have some kind of legal \
argument (e.g. we pursue the meta-structure changes on the advice of legal council.) \
So that is how I plan on moving forward.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <span \
class=""><br> > Per my own dev quiz, the foundation's job is to worry about \
legal<br> > issues (lawsuits, copyrights, etc) and financial issues \
(donations,<br> > server hardware) so that the codemonkey developers don't \
have to.<br> <br>
</span>Even copyright is a gray area thanks to the fact a large deal of<br>
developers lives in Europe.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> That is why I CCed the trustees when the logo stuff on third party<br>
> sites came up. I don't think there's any conspiracy to keep the<br>
> trustees in the dark, but I *do* perceive a lack of communication.<br>
<br>
</span>The fact trustees have no mean to peek in / influence Council or Comrel<br>
shields the foundation from lawsuits.<br></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br> lu<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic