| 1 |
On Friday, January 6, 2017 9:26:50 AM EST Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I don't wish to speculate on the legalities for each person, so to simplify |
| 4 |
> I equate "One cannot legally join the foundation" and "One does not want to |
| 5 |
> join a US based foundation." I think nominally I want to avoid the |
| 6 |
> hypothetical case. So either we have people who are unable to join a US |
| 7 |
> based foundation (either out of legal risk, or personal preference). How do |
| 8 |
> we support this use case? |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I do not think there is any difference between being a member or a developer. |
| 11 |
If you cannot legally be a member, you likely cannot legally be a developer. I |
| 12 |
can see US courts being more concerned with committers than members. Members |
| 13 |
can only can vote, maybe sue the foundation though any individual could as |
| 14 |
well. Committers can do far worse, malicious commit, etc. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
A simple opt out of foundation membership should suffice in both cases. Auto |
| 17 |
add, but allow for exclusion. Maybe a form saying they know they are waiving |
| 18 |
their right to vote for choice. I am not sure the not legally able to be a |
| 19 |
member is really an issues as it would more pertain to developers and staff. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives