Re: [gentoo-project] Formally have Council oversee the Foundation 2.0

[Alec Warner]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
> >>
> >> How would somebody sue "Gentoo" when Gentoo is just a trademark of
> >> SPI?  There would be no legal entity called Gentoo to sue.  That's the
> >> whole point.  If somebody wants to sue SPI then that becomes SPI's
> >> problem, though obviously as a project we would cooperate with them to
> >> minimize this risk.
> >
> > A suit against "Gentoo" aka:
> > https://www.gentoo.org/inside-gentoo/developers/
> >
> > "A business partnership, a nonprofit organization, or a group of citizens
> > can be parties in a lawsuit if the court accepts that group as
> representing
> > 1 side of the dispute."
> >
>
> Sure, but in this case the first two do not exist, so Gentoo could not
> be named in a lawsuit.  Certainly any group of Gentoo
> developers/contributors could be named in a lawsuit, and so could
> their next door neighbors.  And that is no different from today as
> you've pointed out.
>
> My point is that today if somebody messes up they are personally
> liable and the Gentoo Foundation could also be liable.  If we moved to
> the SPI model then the individuals would still be personally liable,
> and SPI could also be liable.  And I assume that SPI is better at
> managing its own liability.
>

I think this is just everyone being nitpicky.

SPI reduces the liability of the Gentoo Foundation (since the board and
officers have specific legal duties that get taken over by SPI.) I don't
think the SPI changes the liability of the foundation members (who do not
receive indemnification either way) or non-members. So saying "there is no
Gentoo to sue" to me is disingenuous. For most people on this thread the
situation is the same; the board and officers encompass only 5 humans.

-A


>
> --
> Rich
>
>