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

[Dale]

Alec Warner wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o
> <mailto:rich0@g.o>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:13 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com
>     <mailto:rdalek1967@×××××.com>> wrote:
>     > Rich Freeman wrote:
>     >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:35 PM, William L. Thomson Jr.
>     >> <wlt-ml@××××××.com <mailto:wlt-ml@××××××.com>> wrote:
>     >>> On Monday, January 16, 2017 11:56:43 AM EST Rich Freeman wrote:
>     >>>> And nobody really has a choice about whether they'll handle
>     lawsuits.
>     >>>> If you own property, then you better have a plan for handling
>     >>>> lawsuits.  I suspect that SPI has thought this through a bit
>     more than
>     >>>> we have historically.
>     >>> The SPI is not a legal management entity. You are confusing
>     fiscal with legal.
>     >>>
>     >> Again, I think you're thinking I'm saying I'm not.
>     >>
>     >> I'm not saying that the Gentoo Foundation should retain the legal
>     >> services of SPI.  I'm saying that they should turn over their
>     property
>     >> to SPI and cease to exist.  At that point we don't need legal
>     >> services, because we legally don't exist.
>     >
>     >
>     > I have been looking at the SPI website, other than managing
>     money and
>     > controlling assets, SPI does not appear to do anything else
>     management
>     > wise.  Do you have a link to the SPI website that says it does
>     what you
>     > claim?
>
>     I don't claim that SPI does anything other than manage money or
>     assets.
>
>     >
>     >>>> In any case, the point is that if Gentoo moves under SPI then
>     there
>     >>>> would be no "Gentoo" to sue.  "Gentoo" would be a trademark
>     of SPI.
>     >>>> Any copyrights on our works that are held centrally would
>     belong to
>     >>>> SPI.  Our money would be stored in SPI bank accounts.  So, if
>     you want
>     >>>> our stuff, you have to sue SPI.
>     >>> Completely WRONG!
>     >>>
>     >>> "Project Independence
>     >>> SPI does not own, govern or control the associated projects."
>     >>> http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/
>     <http://www.spi-inc.org/projects/relationship/>
>     >> They wouldn't own the project.  They would own our assets.  They
>     >> wouldn't control anything.
>     >>
>     >
>     > They would own the assets but I have found nothing that says Gentoo
>     > can't be sued still or that SPI would provide a defense for
>     Gentoo.  The
>     > only case I can think of, if the IRS comes after Gentoo and SPI is
>     > handling the money and paperwork.  Then SPI would step in.
>     >
>
>     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."
>
> But of course, IANAL ;)
>
> -A
>
>
>
>     --
>     Rich
>
>

That's my thinking as well.  If SPI can't be sued, then Gentoo or the
top people still in and running Gentoo would be sued. 

Let's say a dev did something that caused a lawsuit, say violated a
copyright or something of that nature.  Why would SPI defend that when
SPI has no control over what the dev did?  SPI basically manages the
money and assets.  The legal council they have seems to be used to keep
SPI legal not the groups underneath them.  If a distro, whether it is
Debian, Gentoo or someone else, violates someone else or breaks the law,
they would have to defend themselves.  That's what William seems to be
saying and what I am reading on the SPI website. 

Dale

:-)  :-)