| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:35 PM, William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 5 |
>>> <wlt-ml@××××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 11:56:43 AM EST Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>> And nobody really has a choice about whether they'll handle lawsuits. |
| 8 |
>>>>> If you own property, then you better have a plan for handling |
| 9 |
>>>>> lawsuits. I suspect that SPI has thought this through a bit more than |
| 10 |
>>>>> we have historically. |
| 11 |
>>>> The SPI is not a legal management entity. You are confusing fiscal with legal. |
| 12 |
>>>> |
| 13 |
>>> Again, I think you're thinking I'm saying I'm not. |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> I'm not saying that the Gentoo Foundation should retain the legal |
| 16 |
>>> services of SPI. I'm saying that they should turn over their property |
| 17 |
>>> to SPI and cease to exist. At that point we don't need legal |
| 18 |
>>> services, because we legally don't exist. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I have been looking at the SPI website, other than managing money and |
| 21 |
>> controlling assets, SPI does not appear to do anything else management |
| 22 |
>> wise. Do you have a link to the SPI website that says it does what you |
| 23 |
>> claim? |
| 24 |
> I don't claim that SPI does anything other than manage money or assets. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Based on your posts, you are. SPI may handle the assets, the financial |
| 28 |
paperwork and such but that does not mean that if a Gentoo dev, officers |
| 29 |
or anyone else on the behalf of or within Gentoo violates the law that |
| 30 |
Gentoo can't be sued. It would only mean that they would drop down one |
| 31 |
level and sue that. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
So no links to support what you are saying??? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
>>>>> In any case, the point is that if Gentoo moves under SPI then there |
| 37 |
>>>>> would be no "Gentoo" to sue. "Gentoo" would be a trademark of SPI. |
| 38 |
>>>>> Any copyrights on our works that are held centrally would belong to |
| 39 |
>>>>> SPI. Our money would be stored in SPI bank accounts. So, if you want |
| 40 |
>>>>> our stuff, you have to sue SPI. |
| 41 |
>>>> Completely WRONG! |
| 42 |
>>>> |
| 43 |
>>>> "Project Independence |
| 44 |
>>>> SPI does not own, govern or control the associated projects." |
| 45 |
>>>> http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/ |
| 46 |
>>> They wouldn't own the project. They would own our assets. They |
| 47 |
>>> wouldn't control anything. |
| 48 |
>>> |
| 49 |
>> They would own the assets but I have found nothing that says Gentoo |
| 50 |
>> can't be sued still or that SPI would provide a defense for Gentoo. The |
| 51 |
>> only case I can think of, if the IRS comes after Gentoo and SPI is |
| 52 |
>> handling the money and paperwork. Then SPI would step in. |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
> How would somebody sue "Gentoo" when Gentoo is just a trademark of |
| 55 |
> SPI? There would be no legal entity called Gentoo to sue. That's the |
| 56 |
> whole point. If somebody wants to sue SPI then that becomes SPI's |
| 57 |
> problem, though obviously as a project we would cooperate with them to |
| 58 |
> minimize this risk. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
So, you are saying that Gentoo would no longer have any officers, |
| 62 |
trustees, board members, devs or anything else of that nature? As long |
| 63 |
as Gentoo has any of that, it can be sued. I'm not a lawyer either but |
| 64 |
browsing around on the SPI website, I see nothing that supports your |
| 65 |
claim that Gentoo can't be sued. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Dale |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
:-) :-) |
Archives