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 B0EB2139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 069BA14209; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:20:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot0-x230.google.com (mail-ot0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::230]) (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 C14A414208 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 19:20:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 104so48969727otd.3 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:20:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xf3TeIwuhklSdQkSCTkkrhrzss+gW6Zdk/7oC1swx/E=; b=pyOEs6pWz8plLqWnNgIevg2pkk2ZX/2i+JApz/230ggfw/DRMMEewq594xgzhmnx6K 3oo0zWaYfoKLbPCoFnTjdPMEVviAddlLD3qPOxJsq7STWZbrX0DOqGvawfZ5+mzpF+by Up1CiWjVSMPPJdqer8EZBNvaeCadxDKKT9YSlJtxMkqJhxOfeGdT3cE4C6DRmyrXGRNF oakX6obnxmnHLARhN8UWk33vFuufwYP9pkWQp0LJqY7JECIdeCYXKh2rOKcQkZp92QmU Zg50xu5NlegNYu4+Y+G3+22RVNJxfBtXgq/mHGBd4kd8s+K+5jw6yD1t4plYQWtUDyIB sZjA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=xf3TeIwuhklSdQkSCTkkrhrzss+gW6Zdk/7oC1swx/E=; b=beh1Y2KAaj4N84AdBvjTM3vhyrN72JOIbOVv2ssKFJu37mpAiGwQDnLYr35RjrW3KZ ZEmDChJAWfo9hek1VHm+vm/105XM/ZQ+sS8bfw+UMefY29L4qngIEO4IKPFv5CFe/eYG AcKFu83gXbPhUXU+5bnQ5qN8+58CmYGj3l6Lv8d1n+ppayqAfDOkAhX64e4DzJfNE1bY hoLdFDE3xlC7XDOYYLUxo/D6+fThMk0S2VGvVzevlu18yLYL1bfEhAz5Ved3/cRFyilq jUj6cplqErz4xgibKAjk24u8oqlQro5/3AU39Fu8XRafX/iQlmMXVKke0+rnpCUefwWm ZE5A== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI4TVVp2F9X5pTKTiQW1/rS4jJPvNmPgFk4keGApfDHeVCpVptk1zQtAW+TwnQnfw== X-Received: by 10.157.60.69 with SMTP id j5mr19237497ote.224.1484594442134; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:20:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.5] (adsl-65-0-121-9.jan.bellsouth.net. [65.0.121.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w80sm11186123ota.3.2017.01.16.11.20.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 11:20:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Council oversee the Foundation 2.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org References: <1604622.bZRWYHrp25@pinacolada> From: Dale Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 13:20:40 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:49.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/49.0 SeaMonkey/2.46 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 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: ed939c94-a50e-427d-96a4-4a5bf238c7c2 X-Archives-Hash: c761c476d5a6fecaf9744570b96741ce 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. > Since SPI does not control Gentoo or any other project, how could they be held liable in a lawsuit? SPI isn't going to "manage" the devs or any other remnants of Gentoo. That is left to the Gentoo group to manage. That is who would be sued. Now if the IRS were to come after what is left of Gentoo, SPI would likely step in since it is in control of the money and assets However, if the IRS comes after Gentoo for things before SPI took control, then the IRS would likely come after both, Gentoo people for the past behavior and SPI since it has the money and that is usually what the IRS is going after. Of course, the IRS is a different beast. Dale :-) :-)