| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > That is not a statement on behalf of the Gentoo Foundation Inc. at all. |
| 6 |
> > Its my personal opinion as a non US citizen, not normally subject to |
| 7 |
> > the jurisdiction of the US courts. |
| 8 |
> > Its also an acknowledgement that the US courts can be and are ignored, |
| 9 |
> > even in Europe. e.g. enforcing software patents. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > I believe our IP is well protected in the USA, is protected in places |
| 12 |
> > the USA has treaties with but is not protected at all in regions where |
| 13 |
> > the USA has little or no influence. e.g. Cuba. Cuba seems to be doing |
| 14 |
> > quite nicely ... they even have their own Gentoo based distro. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> So, if Bill Gates stated, purely as a private citizen, that Microsoft |
| 17 |
> probably didn't have grounds to sue Google over some software patent, |
| 18 |
> do you think that this wouldn't be likely to be introduced as evidence |
| 19 |
> in a court all the same? Would it influence a jury? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I am amused that below, you talk about how speculation is probably a bad |
| 23 |
idea, but |
| 24 |
you continue to speculate here (against your own advice!) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Seriously though, I'm not sure what our legal costs are (if any) but these |
| 27 |
conversations are |
| 28 |
likely fine to have in an attorney client privileged conversation. Maybe |
| 29 |
consultation is expensive for us, which is why we have them here (at some |
| 30 |
risk to the Foundation.) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> I guess the point is that we need to be careful here. The Gentoo |
| 35 |
> trademarks and IP are the Gentoo Foundation's greatest asset. As a |
| 36 |
> member of the Foundation's board you're legally required to do |
| 37 |
> everything in your power to preserve the value of those assets, unless |
| 38 |
> you're spending them to further the Foundation's mission. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I don't mean this as finger-pointing/etc. Just having been in your |
| 41 |
> shoes I've wondered whether I could legally make comments to the |
| 42 |
> effect that some entity might have some legal right to the Gentoo name |
| 43 |
> beyond anything explicitly granted by the Foundation. It could |
| 44 |
> potentially make me liable to any Foundation member for a lawsuit over |
| 45 |
> despoliation of assets. That might be the case whether the statement |
| 46 |
> was true or not, simply because it could be used against the |
| 47 |
> Foundation, and I'm an officer of the Foundation required under US law |
| 48 |
> to protect its interests (as such I could be liable for both action or |
| 49 |
> failure to act). |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> That's why I think it is a good idea to try to establish some kind of |
| 53 |
> legal relationship with the e.V. one way or another. It just seems |
| 54 |
> like a potential legal-issue-in-waiting down the road if for some |
| 55 |
> reason the two orgs ever do go separate ways, or for some 3rd party to |
| 56 |
> leverage against both organizations. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
As I mentioned previously, feel free to engage them ;) |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-A |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> As far as legal counsel goes - I certainly agree that on such matters |
| 66 |
> their advice should be sought. That's why I'm trying to caution |
| 67 |
> against speculation on a public mailing list that the Gentoo |
| 68 |
> Foundation's legal rights are limited in any way whatsoever. |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
> Rich |
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> |
Archives