Re: [gentoo-project] Meeting agenda - Council meeting 2018-04-08

[Matthew Thode]

On 18-04-06 07:43:31, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:39 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote:
> > On 18-04-05 21:15:08, William Hubbs wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:19:52AM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote:
> >>
> >> *snip*
> >>
> >> > 8. The council was requested to discuss and vote on the following motion [8]
> >> >
> >> >       "The Gentoo council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> >> >       Inc." (SPI), with the intention of Gentoo becoming a SPI Associated Project,
> >> >       independent of the Gentoo Foundation."
> >>
> >> As a newly accepted member of the Gentoo foundation, I am making sure
> >> the trustees are aware of this agenda item.  Is it ok for us to join an
> >> alternate organization such as is being proposed?
> >>
> >
> > Nope, though I imagine the council already knows that (the council has
> > requested this in the past iirc).
> >
>
> I don't think he was suggesting that the Foundation should become
> associated with SPI, but rather the distro.  The wording is a bit
> sloppy, IMO.
>
> Maybe something like this might convey what I suspect was the intent:
>
> The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
> Associated Project,
> independent of the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> I'd suggest a better model might be:
>
> The council shall directly contact "Software in the Public Interest
> Inc." (SPI), with the intention of the project becoming a SPI
> Associated Project,
> in addition to being supported by the Gentoo Foundation.
>
> I think we're getting a bit hung up on the word "Gentoo" referring to
> both a legal entity and a community/project supported by the entity.
> Legally it only means the first.  However, I can think of no legal
> reason that the group of people associated with Gentoo couldn't also
> associate with other legal entities, as long as Gentoo's legal rights
> to the copyrights/trademarks are respected.  That is just freedom of
> association.
>
> IMO having multiple organizations supporting the distro could be
> beneficial.  I'd concede that it would be unconventional.  Legally the
> Gentoo name would only belong to one of them, but the work itself
> could be funded and supported via any of them.
>
> If nothing else this might also be a way to reduce the workload on the
> Foundation so that they can focus more on getting the paperwork caught
> up vs actually having to pay for infra.
>

Ah, that makes sense, if it is a desired thing to happen it'd probably
be a good idea to talk with the Foundation about it as well (we don't
want to work against eachother, open communication, etc).

-- 
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)