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 8CC73139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:46:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DAFCE21C120; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:46:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-x243.google.com (mail-qt0-x243.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::243]) (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 A9AEB21C11C for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:46:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-x243.google.com with SMTP id l7so15946950qtd.3 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:46:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to; bh=t+4I8t0oY8t+Ji6iwTf1+7xUE5lCrOMOGnmPn3J9hfw=; b=RxbbJJitrpCyOG4zOeSepnij5nE6uLS2Z/dRAlTuKMd2Vh0YqUiI06sXl6UbD3EOTW WVNcr8G2HuVixolFB5kdPymHy2OB4l5z9lRpP82s2v/P6reocv6XN53uO38wSvQ0wau8 yLW53lA6hjsXKhMG8oPgJtIpwhOq2yipNyaVwBD2M5TofwsErBqop+tht08haWs510ur vlLgUlukZXA5o1Pq4BK4M3gJuCTAxF+8s3P7FKiU+G8uxgzTywukC+x1iDOldbMJb4E8 4bi+ZT9ELUBpOhepcO6lE3FT25OIn8X7PrPcXkGe9G9vrl2GczLg6V+lp9cH5Hvu5spf xPnA== 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=t+4I8t0oY8t+Ji6iwTf1+7xUE5lCrOMOGnmPn3J9hfw=; b=JDc4QJo0fVBUrTWvfcxEl+4p9FSqreBMTZieB3ElLIqa55eIXzwy/p7DZuLRd23Svg W4uKubfjFsv825ZKcDcx+6GlYv57W29SUgSmG8ikONmdCsynrMNhn8sk/NiFfeVybRg3 UdOlQWJx/Wsw0ZDgInHKl1y8eN6NzQDy1TgnZtP9634qGtjIUC/cE/fkUd9PaZ3w73UO Py3ZpS0UcJNRTvgjqU5mQgzKz1eze4Hw6akcJ4zO5ehcE0mEICMuLkZQCFLMJZcBovwz oJT8Goiq6cAU2O/SkY4rJ4yNnQG4lxcJgIyPwoWYT2ojyboOHo5ZqMF3kOseG7yzI/Us jfmw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLCictAW/i6Ntdi85Y/liGQVKeRtvfxLDPtG5pLSsGV/ZAk4oqsD3vNPJUjspy6fo0W8/JifIQZSpTWUA== X-Received: by 10.237.63.119 with SMTP id q52mr30030908qtf.29.1484592385705; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:46:25 -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: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.140.16.132 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:46:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1604622.bZRWYHrp25@pinacolada> From: Rich Freeman Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:46:25 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: wHRuYSU-TxvVkchqzEngTxB1PPo Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Council oversee the Foundation 2.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 609a82c6-f11f-4986-885f-5fa29b4da1da X-Archives-Hash: 00c43fc824c6a73c997bc311bdf0be65 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. -- Rich