On 16 Apr 2004, at 23:16, Daniel Robbins wrote:
> Hi Guys,
> I met with my lawyer and this is the tenative plan for the not for
> In this plan, I am attempting to balance the commitments I have made
> to individuals
Can those commitments be categorized as for profit?
> Gentoo Foundation, Inc. proposal
> There will be an initial board of trustees appointed, which will be
> to meet my commitments to existing managers and developers.
Do we have to trust the people you have made commitments to, and which
are going to be selected by gentoos sole FP entity (because that is the
only thing you have been doing lately)?
I wouldn't want to be part of that NFP board, because people could say
that I'm one of guys you made a secret commitment with. You are already
saying that you made commitments with certain managers, I don't think
it was smart for such a manager to engage in such a commitment, and
especially not to insist on it being put into practice the way you are
currently trying to implement the commitment. I would even go as far to
claim that such a manager (who insists on implementing the commitment)
is putting the establishment of a NFP entity at risk.
As long as those commitments cannot be categorized as for profit, I
would have no objection for such a gentoo member (who engaged in a
commitment) to become part of the initial NFP board, a board whose
responsibility would be, amongst others, to determine a policy on what
FP entities are allowed to use the Gentoo trademarks. You have to
realize that the very fact that I need to ask a FP entity (again,
because that's the only thing you have been doing lately) this
question, probably renders the situation more complicated than it
needed to be, unfortunately.
> Gentoo Technologies, Inc. will transfer the copyrights and trademarks
> to the
> Gentoo Foundation. In exchange, the Gentoo Foundation will grant Daniel
> Robbins & Gentoo Technologies, Inc. perpetual, non-exclusive,
> use of the "Gentoo" trademark and "G" logo. This will allow me to
> to run the Gentoo Store if I want.
You could leave this out, and make a 'gentlemen agreement' instead. Why
wouldn't the people you have been making commitments to behind at least
my back, be prepared to make a commitment to you in return? Especially
after all the trouble you are undergoing to ensure those commitments
The board hasn't been established and already it needs to agree to the
-unconditional- demands of a FP entity. This effectively puts a FP
entity in control of the entire cash-flow of the NFP entity, an FP
entity who I should note has failed to publish quarterly financial
results, besides the occasional "I need a raise", "I want a higher
living standard", "I am <insert high amount> in debt", ... (which was
send to this list just moments ago I see).
You have to make your mind up: Moving the FP to a new office instead of
continuing to burn cds at home, and then whining to the NFP about your
debt, doesn't sound ok to me. It still is your problem to make sure you
keep both your FP and NFP roles as (amongst others) a
release-engineering lead, manager, chief architect, trademark holder,
store owner, ... separated.
> If you have any suggestions for improvement or for coordinator/project
> structure, try to see if you can suggest it so that it can work in the
> context of what I've just outlined above.
Trying to stick to that wasn't easy.
Pieter Van den Abeele
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list