From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-project+bounces-6322-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8568E139085
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:52:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A74921C13B;
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:52:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ot0-x244.google.com (mail-ot0-x244.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::244])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F257E21C13A
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:52:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot0-x244.google.com with SMTP id f9so7195580otd.0
for <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:52:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=scriptkitty-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id
:subject:to;
bh=3rXcoUiJcACkf4HCGTchHt/KGY02ZP4mG+k8IcWTBvo=;
b=jlfH6dvqTsx8wtOKEjh6YIvr0YmUyD0p4U8vLLMCDvqsFP5nAxBe02tZEU4isKYE1x
mtFaknmm0eNCfyCz5BL/yqP140obLz6UAp1yi/2IXG7SyK6vd4swFnfOyEDKyIECcMLt
2nyViEI2Wa0WGxNj6cKM+rCYRIZCjQqYDOaW14EEeavG/8U6fFLpnqVH8A+PJtZmOAIK
gN48dim91NAvg9n9j7R6/ICZSxLrkvBM7nSu4QZE2Z4klLiNdBrORdbL3fwxFLXUW39I
N+qH0oeOAA6rNVcnj3X4kvP+U81TPn1YTr/NZuklTjzAU/JYgDaJhanukoSuw7TbwTEZ
2bGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from
:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=3rXcoUiJcACkf4HCGTchHt/KGY02ZP4mG+k8IcWTBvo=;
b=OdxOB2XbNr9R2hnE93Nk+XWz6YxUhuSD+AX34t0PWbbRPG6JbX6mfjqGn12ZxP7jOd
f1szlaBGV1nqPR/Htq0IKTlouGQG7a/mnmMzg1Rv3lCOfks0I6wnyoy9RoKiuHHeMgeP
sXIqL1xRf4BA0+pUz98Lkf51sK2efvgwnX2tIhAfcJPfFED/isqxqTXk4gfbvBwKJjD8
7CkxqbFqP3wI6HXFNWAYV9G0z/tiyi3tc9qGasyzOOyCC/dKlHQCATHzcceZqlmN6gzd
c0czZZbh8YEChAIPHZVIut4SuI7KkHJdFo6Os1z0wMc85i1fArfJKH/W36qz8JLrbkJ0
Lzbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLvOA0+G/ukMpAnz5LXYOvM5C8gHe2OaBsovhluwiJzkfeMvOtfiTLWz5KZ1pqQvmbrsaxtBbDhoXjyWQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.45.84 with SMTP id v78mr16174176ota.102.1484592756169;
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:52:36 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-project+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-project+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list <gentoo-project.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.182.156.15 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:52:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [50.184.239.68]
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_=TEfavYkVifr1xeuskj_8M4O7F7SDt8f6=okyTVwFU6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1604622.bZRWYHrp25@pinacolada> <assp.0189662271.10131928.pjZT0VFgTM@wlt>
<CAGfcS_mX582507DE3WS7ZVFoMAjUB7guu4O5ennQPogw8tgC0g@mail.gmail.com>
<assp.0189685dd0.2158842.5HeaDustzS@wlt> <CAGfcS_=RzuzUbO2XTghKWpNdijCLwPAFjcanTKbZx0+XhGFDUA@mail.gmail.com>
<b135be8b-de54-7dec-f405-33ab674c7d86@gmail.com> <CAGfcS_n-FeK3PKe3BSrj3_uBOQqkPdGNJ4J5RrQwiNFhpJNdng@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAr7Pr96K71XN8TcpJQRRTXo5SeXW7SV_jiBfpxQikqgt5z_ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAGfcS_=TEfavYkVifr1xeuskj_8M4O7F7SDt8f6=okyTVwFU6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:52:35 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: fok3wNCxCntfcU_QPMWvlIkXOZo
Message-ID: <CAAr7Pr8OGLiGbu92ko95rSeffdSAKOVpX=Vt5YahgxXgw_GefQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Council oversee the Foundation 2.0
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d13f8de352305463aaf7a
X-Archives-Salt: 199b6b9b-b65c-4666-a422-a0424324ee21
X-Archives-Hash: 9e6c6ef8d1863d23254a4e89d73687de
--001a113d13f8de352305463aaf7a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> How would somebody sue "Gentoo" when Gentoo is just a trademark of
> >> SPI? There would be no legal entity called Gentoo to sue. That's the
> >> whole point. If somebody wants to sue SPI then that becomes SPI's
> >> problem, though obviously as a project we would cooperate with them to
> >> minimize this risk.
> >
> > A suit against "Gentoo" aka:
> > https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/developers/
> >
> > "A business partnership, a nonprofit organization, or a group of citizens
> > can be parties in a lawsuit if the court accepts that group as
> representing
> > 1 side of the dispute."
> >
>
> Sure, but in this case the first two do not exist, so Gentoo could not
> be named in a lawsuit. Certainly any group of Gentoo
> developers/contributors could be named in a lawsuit, and so could
> their next door neighbors. And that is no different from today as
> you've pointed out.
>
> My point is that today if somebody messes up they are personally
> liable and the Gentoo Foundation could also be liable. If we moved to
> the SPI model then the individuals would still be personally liable,
> and SPI could also be liable. And I assume that SPI is better at
> managing its own liability.
>
I think this is just everyone being nitpicky.
SPI reduces the liability of the Gentoo Foundation (since the board and
officers have specific legal duties that get taken over by SPI.) I don't
think the SPI changes the liability of the foundation members (who do not
receive indemnification either way) or non-members. So saying "there is no
Gentoo to sue" to me is disingenuous. For most people on this thread the
situation is the same; the board and officers encompass only 5 humans.
-A
>
> --
> Rich
>
>
--001a113d13f8de352305463aaf7a
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Rich Freeman <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a=
href=3D"mailto:rich0@gentoo.org" target=3D"_blank">rich0@gentoo.org</a>>=
;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On Mon, =
Jan 16, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Alec Warner <<a href=3D"mailto:antarus@gentoo.o=
rg">antarus@gentoo.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman <<a href=3D"mailto:r=
ich0@gentoo.org">rich0@gentoo.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
</span><span class=3D"">>> How would somebody sue "Gentoo" =
when Gentoo is just a trademark of<br>
>> SPI?=C2=A0 There would be no legal entity called Gentoo to sue.=C2=
=A0 That's the<br>
>> whole point.=C2=A0 If somebody wants to sue SPI then that becomes =
SPI's<br>
>> problem, though obviously as a project we would cooperate with the=
m to<br>
>> minimize this risk.<br>
><br>
> A suit against "Gentoo" aka:<br>
> <a href=3D"https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/developers/" rel=3D"no=
referrer" target=3D"_blank">https://www.gentoo.org/inside-<wbr>gentoo/devel=
opers/</a><br>
><br>
> "A business partnership, a nonprofit organization, or a group of =
citizens<br>
> can be parties in a lawsuit if the court accepts that group as represe=
nting<br>
> 1 side of the dispute."<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>Sure, but in this case the first two do not exist, so Gentoo could n=
ot<br>
be named in a lawsuit.=C2=A0 Certainly any group of Gentoo<br>
developers/contributors could be named in a lawsuit, and so could<br>
their next door neighbors.=C2=A0 And that is no different from today as<br>
you've pointed out.<br>
<br>
My point is that today if somebody messes up they are personally<br>
liable and the Gentoo Foundation could also be liable.=C2=A0 If we moved to=
<br>
the SPI model then the individuals would still be personally liable,<br>
and SPI could also be liable.=C2=A0 And I assume that SPI is better at<br>
managing its own liability.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think thi=
s is just everyone being nitpicky.</div><div><br></div><div>SPI reduces the=
liability of the Gentoo Foundation (since the board and officers have spec=
ific legal duties that get taken over by SPI.) I don't think the SPI ch=
anges the liability of the foundation members (who do not receive indemnifi=
cation either way) or non-members. So saying "there is no Gentoo to su=
e" to me is disingenuous. For most people on this thread the situation=
is the same; the board and officers encompass only 5 humans.</div><div><br=
></div><div>-A</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Rich<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
--001a113d13f8de352305463aaf7a--