From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 ; 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 ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:52:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-x244.google.com with SMTP id f9so7195580otd.0 for ; 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list 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: References: <1604622.bZRWYHrp25@pinacolada> From: Alec Warner Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:52:35 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: fok3wNCxCntfcU_QPMWvlIkXOZo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Council oversee the Foundation 2.0 To: gentoo-project 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 wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman 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


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?=C2=A0 There would be no legal entity called Gentoo to sue.=C2= =A0 That's the
>> whole point.=C2=A0 If somebody wants to sue SPI then that becomes = SPI's
>> problem, though obviously as a project we would cooperate with the= m to
>> minimize this risk.
>
> A suit against "Gentoo" aka:
> https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/devel= opers/
>
> "A business partnership, a nonprofit organization, or a group of = citizens
> can be parties in a lawsuit if the court accepts that group as represe= nting
> 1 side of the dispute."
>

Sure, but in this case the first two do not exist, so Gentoo could n= ot
be named in a lawsuit.=C2=A0 Certainly any group of Gentoo
developers/contributors could be named in a lawsuit, and so could
their next door neighbors.=C2=A0 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.=C2=A0 If we moved to=
the SPI model then the individuals would still be personally liable,
and SPI could also be liable.=C2=A0 And I assume that SPI is better at
managing its own liability.

I think thi= s is just everyone being nitpicky.

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.
-A
=C2=A0

--
Rich


--001a113d13f8de352305463aaf7a--