| 1 |
Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the |
| 4 |
> project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement |
| 5 |
> between the foundation and them. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that. |
| 8 |
However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two |
| 11 |
> accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Incorrect. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
(And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that |
| 16 |
out.) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a |
| 19 |
similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors." |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they |
| 22 |
> are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in |
| 23 |
> charge and both legally are. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think |
| 26 |
you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Andreas K. Hüttel |
| 30 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 32 |
(council, toolchain, perl, libreoffice, comrel) |
Archives