1 |
On Thu, Jul 15, 2004 at 04:18:02PM -0600 or thereabouts, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
2 |
> Could I drop my obligation to pay for the funding of the 501(c)(x) if I |
3 |
> wanted, for example? Could I decide to transfer the Gentoo name and logo to |
4 |
> me personally, rather than the foundation, but give the foundation an |
5 |
> unlimited license to use it, so that legal disclaimers read "Gentoo is a |
6 |
> registered trademark of Daniel Robbins" just like it says "Linux is a |
7 |
> registered trademark of Linus Torvalds?" |
8 |
|
9 |
Daniel -- all we're trying to do is to do what is best for Gentoo. That is |
10 |
what you asked us to do originally. I'm very sorry if you perceive our |
11 |
seeking of a second opinion as a violation of the agreement we made. As |
12 |
Grant said, I never perceived it to be an agreement, but more of a |
13 |
guideline. The message I took away was, "be gentle caretakers" and "do |
14 |
what is best for our users". |
15 |
|
16 |
None of us have anything to gain from second-guessing your original choice |
17 |
for a 501(c)(6) status. There are no ulterior motives. We simply weren't |
18 |
involved with the decision making process and, now that we're charged with |
19 |
the caretaking of Gentoo, maybe we need to make sure that we're more |
20 |
informed about the decisions that have been made to this point. The only |
21 |
reason we are doing this is to ensure that we are being the best caretakers |
22 |
possible. Why are you so upset over this? Why is it even an issue? |
23 |
|
24 |
You are taking this personally and I wish you wouldn't. What you don't |
25 |
realize is we're doing exactly what you asked us to do, which is to ensure |
26 |
we protect the interests of our users. |
27 |
|
28 |
--kurt |