| 1 |
On 18-04-07 15:15:18, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 18-04-07 21:01:38, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Am Samstag, 7. April 2018, 20:37:21 CEST schrieb Matthew Thode: |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> > Second, I highly doubt that any other org would be willing to manage the |
| 7 |
> >> > project without at least some sort of license/trademark agreement |
| 8 |
> >> > between the foundation and them. |
| 9 |
> >> |
| 10 |
> >> As long as no public representation takes place, I see no need for that. |
| 11 |
> >> However, this is a valid point that needs to be considered. |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >> > Third, I also doubt any org stepping in would want to manage one of two |
| 14 |
> >> > accounts (bank wise), they'd want to manage all the money. |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> Incorrect. |
| 17 |
> >> |
| 18 |
> >> (And if you ever bothered to actually read my mails, I already pointed that |
| 19 |
> >> out.) |
| 20 |
> >> |
| 21 |
> >> Quoting the SPI web pages: "SPI does not prohibit the project from having a |
| 22 |
> >> similar relationship with other fiscal sponsors." |
| 23 |
> >> |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > Thanks for this, I haven't had time to catch up everywhere, this list |
| 26 |
> > suddenly went into high traffic mode... |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> >> > We'd be replacing one structure, where two groups think they |
| 29 |
> >> > are in charge but one legally is, with two groups who think they are in |
| 30 |
> >> > charge and both legally are. |
| 31 |
> >> |
| 32 |
> >> That sentence brings up a philosophical question. What happens if you think |
| 33 |
> >> you're in charge, but nobody else does? (maybe except veremit) |
| 34 |
> >> |
| 35 |
> > |
| 36 |
> > Eventually, if the person thinking they were in charge (but not actually |
| 37 |
> > in charge) were to do something intolerable in the view of the group |
| 38 |
> > actually in charge, they'd be fired / kicked out. The could possibly |
| 39 |
> > extend to the removing of licencing/trademark privileges if any exist. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> That last bit only applies if the people in charge own any |
| 42 |
> trademarks/etc. There wouldn't be much to be done with licenses since |
| 43 |
> Gentoo is FOSS. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> If the Foundation got kicked out it seems like they only thing they |
| 46 |
> could try to do is ask everybody to change the project name. Maybe |
| 47 |
> they could try to seize control over the domain name or something. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
This is true, I think I said it somewhere else in this thread, but if |
| 51 |
everyone wanted to go and rename things that'd be a valid attack |
| 52 |
strategy against the trustees. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
Matthew Thode (prometheanfire) |
Archives