| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseagoon@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> As far as I am aware, under the current organisation there is no legal |
| 3 |
> connection between the Gentoo Foundation Inc., and the Gentoo |
| 4 |
> distribution. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
True, but that doesn't mean that the Foundation might not be found |
| 7 |
liable for things done using Foundation property, like servers, domain |
| 8 |
names, and trademarks - especially if the Foundation has prior |
| 9 |
knowledge of these actions. I'm not sure the car example was |
| 10 |
accurate, since in this case the distribution is being facilitated |
| 11 |
using Foundation property and clearly at this point the Foundation has |
| 12 |
knowledge that it is occurring. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Regardless of who can get sued, we should comply with the GPL |
| 15 |
regardless. To that end I agree that we should refrain from shipping |
| 16 |
historical binaries unless we also tarball portage and the distfiles |
| 17 |
from the same period of time. I definitely agree with his suggestion |
| 18 |
that we should always make both available online simultaneously to |
| 19 |
avoid the 3-year rule. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'm sure that if the FSF were concerned they'd ask us nicely before |
| 22 |
suing anybody - especially since we are an FOSS effort ourselves that |
| 23 |
tries to comply with the GPL/etc. So, the risk is low, but that isn't |
| 24 |
a reason not to comply. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Does anybody have a strong objection to removing historical binary |
| 27 |
distributions of Gentoo on any Gentoo-controlled/linked servers, or |
| 28 |
general disagreement with Duncan's proposal? I don't really want to |
| 29 |
get sidetracked into a debate about the boundaries between |
| 30 |
Council/Trustees/Foundation/Distro unless there is an actual |
| 31 |
disagreement on the matter at hand. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Rich |
Archives