1 |
s/council/counsel/g. Spelling is hard. |
2 |
|
3 |
-A |
4 |
|
5 |
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
|
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
10 |
> |
11 |
>> On 13/11/2016 23:33, Raymond Jennings wrote: |
12 |
>> > My personal opinion here is that *anything* to do with legal issues, |
13 |
>> > such as legal liability, no matter how theoretical, is something the |
14 |
>> > trustees should be involved in. |
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> I already enumerated the situations that would involve the foundation. |
17 |
>> |
18 |
>> On the contrary of companies that can be sued if somebody hired by them |
19 |
>> harasses or worse another person within the company, the foundation, |
20 |
>> being unrelated to the Gentoo community barring acting as a piggy bank, |
21 |
>> cannot be sued. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
>> There isn't any specific requirement for that and there isn't any |
24 |
>> contract that ties the people volunteering their free time to do |
25 |
>> something in Gentoo with the foundation (since the copyright assignment |
26 |
>> got killed as I mentioned before). |
27 |
>> |
28 |
> |
29 |
> I think I disagree with you here. However, I suspect the risk is minimal |
30 |
> and can be mitigated by carrying the appropriate insurance. For instance, |
31 |
> if we look at say, Debian. |
32 |
> |
33 |
> 1) SPI contains the funds for Debian. |
34 |
> 2) SPI contains the copyright and trademarks for Debian. |
35 |
> 3) Does SPI control the policies of Debian in the same way? |
36 |
> 4) What insurance (if any) does SPI carry to mitigate this risk (or |
37 |
> perhaps their lawyers claim there are none.) |
38 |
> |
39 |
> I'm not aware of trustees seeking legal council on this issue, so I want |
40 |
> to avoid making metastructure proposals based on laymen risk assessment. I |
41 |
> think if the trustees are worried about risk, they can hire an attorney to |
42 |
> evaluate such risk. If the risk is great, at least we have some kind of |
43 |
> legal argument (e.g. we pursue the meta-structure changes on the advice of |
44 |
> legal council.) So that is how I plan on moving forward. |
45 |
> |
46 |
>> |
47 |
>> > Per my own dev quiz, the foundation's job is to worry about legal |
48 |
>> > issues (lawsuits, copyrights, etc) and financial issues (donations, |
49 |
>> > server hardware) so that the codemonkey developers don't have to. |
50 |
>> |
51 |
>> Even copyright is a gray area thanks to the fact a large deal of |
52 |
>> developers lives in Europe. |
53 |
>> |
54 |
>> > That is why I CCed the trustees when the logo stuff on third party |
55 |
>> > sites came up. I don't think there's any conspiracy to keep the |
56 |
>> > trustees in the dark, but I *do* perceive a lack of communication. |
57 |
>> |
58 |
>> The fact trustees have no mean to peek in / influence Council or Comrel |
59 |
>> shields the foundation from lawsuits. |
60 |
>> |
61 |
> |
62 |
>> lu |
63 |
>> |
64 |
>> |
65 |
> |