| 1 |
On 18-04-07 21:01:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the |
| 5 |
> > project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement |
| 6 |
> > between the foundation and them. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that. |
| 9 |
> However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> > Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two |
| 12 |
> > accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Incorrect. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> (And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that |
| 17 |
> out.) |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a |
| 20 |
> similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors." |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks for this, I haven't had time to catch up everywhere, this list |
| 24 |
suddenly went into high traffic mode... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> > We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they |
| 27 |
> > are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in |
| 28 |
> > charge and both legally are. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think |
| 31 |
> you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Eventually, if the person thinking they were in charge (but not actually |
| 35 |
in charge) were to do something intolerable in the view of the group |
| 36 |
actually in charge, they'd be fired / kicked out. The could possibly |
| 37 |
extend to the removing of licencing/trademark privileges if any exist. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives