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 AD83C139085 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11DA621C102; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:46:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-x22d.google.com (mail-yw0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22d]) (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 C8F7C21C100 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 18:46:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id l75so73856468ywb.0 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:46:13 -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; bh=+FrtOgl9pQJXLzOk7QBJeqcNJLXKlyx2mkgjUzFXo94=; b=H+j1ILvQU3bq4e+k/k2WtvVOQvef49XQXr0Sg7TdqHu0y+IkLOwU5uENoGzxT7X/Rz NVB/xlEYg8v/m0AOP91zNOUSruFYxCzShv4O7PLfxqzeS3Tg8NmO/3dkb9J3/O31GwbO EcNSPW5932qhqDDnpQRouJEVbHToNRfwkqzGeUmrzFnnLD7VyXMWhhNjbYxO8y6kgvCk YrfDT/+yt2TTT+kykFMNvLifNaDdP0pWG2gV9J0yYNcH1rknIdkXjx01p0+yp59M7VzN fpBlgWjcZnawFmHslqdvuYJLjTFhloOixTkMtzpQk4FJ225q8l9LHdtpVqN444nJ5bIY nTUg== 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; bh=+FrtOgl9pQJXLzOk7QBJeqcNJLXKlyx2mkgjUzFXo94=; b=cKJwHXLSOd7Z+2L6MlcZYPLtVMMnKRhX6coXoWMWUO6IcSm7SoJ5A4fhJzOqcks/W8 /45Y0jZ/bnREKOFQeU45OJk8cMlN4wJRgwb6UHaVIyhLAHa4mhWYw3zLR4d277S6H/MW NTmoefyrQ7VSqyDQVyu5x8JHHzJ3AFFPysZZOhmmTkoepzn2vL5EydTkecVqhmyDkOA7 wZ4g0/ZsE3bgF+Wr0PbHmn/qPw5W1qP3QvBYyN02oZlLAz34xkeSM6AyRjF/rSs0bz7g K0VdokOcPOtEHDscId/EI4+gtYHmZSMg0TywwbdbX5joye+E+lLtOMhIRge4/GG/Xfvv L9kw== X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXJ0LsjPWm2c4qcB0W3VHu3UjvJ/E8Bc6Bxt0XQ/fd5hSQmTzdozpu8kAp4ty+1Etg== X-Received: by 10.129.97.136 with SMTP id v130mr28963157ywb.216.1484592373136; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:46:13 -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 q14sm5462530ywa.53.2017.01.16.10.46.12 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:46:12 -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 12:46:11 -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: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------C025199BD00CF28A2046C885" X-Archives-Salt: 409093d4-d96c-4fb9-9f05-f1be96abd1b4 X-Archives-Hash: d913cefd9d63c091dd5915e789bf893d This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------C025199BD00CF28A2046C885 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dale > wrote: > > Rich Freeman wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:35 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. > >> > wrote: > >>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 11:56:43 AM EST Rich Freeman wrote: > >>>> And nobody really has a choice about whether they'll handle > lawsuits. > >>>> If you own property, then you better have a plan for handling > >>>> lawsuits. I suspect that SPI has thought this through a bit > more than > >>>> we have historically. > >>> The SPI is not a legal management entity. You are confusing > fiscal with legal. > >>> > >> Again, I think you're thinking I'm saying I'm not. > >> > >> I'm not saying that the Gentoo Foundation should retain the legal > >> services of SPI. I'm saying that they should turn over their > property > >> to SPI and cease to exist. At that point we don't need legal > >> services, because we legally don't exist. > > > > > > I have been looking at the SPI website, other than managing > money and > > controlling assets, SPI does not appear to do anything else > management > > wise. Do you have a link to the SPI website that says it does > what you > > claim? > > I don't claim that SPI does anything other than manage money or > assets. > > > > >>>> In any case, the point is that if Gentoo moves under SPI then > there > >>>> would be no "Gentoo" to sue. "Gentoo" would be a trademark > of SPI. > >>>> Any copyrights on our works that are held centrally would > belong to > >>>> SPI. Our money would be stored in SPI bank accounts. So, if > you want > >>>> our stuff, you have to sue SPI. > >>> Completely WRONG! > >>> > >>> "Project Independence > >>> SPI does not own, govern or control the associated projects." > >>> http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/ > > >> They wouldn't own the project. They would own our assets. They > >> wouldn't control anything. > >> > > > > They would own the assets but I have found nothing that says Gentoo > > can't be sued still or that SPI would provide a defense for > Gentoo. The > > only case I can think of, if the IRS comes after Gentoo and SPI is > > handling the money and paperwork. Then SPI would step in. > > > > 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." > > But of course, IANAL ;) > > -A > > > > -- > Rich > > That's my thinking as well. If SPI can't be sued, then Gentoo or the top people still in and running Gentoo would be sued. Let's say a dev did something that caused a lawsuit, say violated a copyright or something of that nature. Why would SPI defend that when SPI has no control over what the dev did? SPI basically manages the money and assets. The legal council they have seems to be used to keep SPI legal not the groups underneath them. If a distro, whether it is Debian, Gentoo or someone else, violates someone else or breaks the law, they would have to defend themselves. That's what William seems to be saying and what I am reading on the SPI website. Dale :-) :-) --------------C025199BD00CF28A2046C885 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Alec Warner wrote:


On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:35 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>> <wlt-ml@o-sinc.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 11:56:43 AM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
>>>> And nobody really has a choice about whether they'll handle lawsuits.
>>>> If you own property, then you better have a plan for handling
>>>> lawsuits.  I suspect that SPI has thought this through a bit more than
>>>> we have historically.
>>> The SPI is not a legal management entity. You are confusing fiscal with legal.
>>>
>> Again, I think you're thinking I'm saying I'm not.
>>
>> I'm not saying that the Gentoo Foundation should retain the legal
>> services of SPI.  I'm saying that they should turn over their property
>> to SPI and cease to exist.  At that point we don't need legal
>> services, because we legally don't exist.
>
>
> I have been looking at the SPI website, other than managing money and
> controlling assets, SPI does not appear to do anything else management
> wise.  Do you have a link to the SPI website that says it does what you
> claim?

I don't claim that SPI does anything other than manage money or assets.

>
>>>> In any case, the point is that if Gentoo moves under SPI then there
>>>> would be no "Gentoo" to sue.  "Gentoo" would be a trademark of SPI.
>>>> Any copyrights on our works that are held centrally would belong to
>>>> SPI.  Our money would be stored in SPI bank accounts.  So, if you want
>>>> our stuff, you have to sue SPI.
>>> Completely WRONG!
>>>
>>> "Project Independence
>>> SPI does not own, govern or control the associated projects."
>>> http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/
>> They wouldn't own the project.  They would own our assets.  They
>> wouldn't control anything.
>>
>
> They would own the assets but I have found nothing that says Gentoo
> can't be sued still or that SPI would provide a defense for Gentoo.  The
> only case I can think of, if the IRS comes after Gentoo and SPI is
> handling the money and paperwork.  Then SPI would step in.
>

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 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."

But of course, IANAL ;)

-A
 

--
Rich



That's my thinking as well.  If SPI can't be sued, then Gentoo or the top people still in and running Gentoo would be sued. 

Let's say a dev did something that caused a lawsuit, say violated a copyright or something of that nature.  Why would SPI defend that when SPI has no control over what the dev did?  SPI basically manages the money and assets.  The legal council they have seems to be used to keep SPI legal not the groups underneath them.  If a distro, whether it is Debian, Gentoo or someone else, violates someone else or breaks the law, they would have to defend themselves.  That's what William seems to be saying and what I am reading on the SPI website. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 
--------------C025199BD00CF28A2046C885--