Hi Karen, It seems you were caught by our moderation filter which traps messages from unsubscribed users, sorry about that!
On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 18:18:47 -0500, Karen Sandler wrote:
> Because the Conservancy doesn't have the resources to conduct an audit
> of the darcs code base to determine whether or not there are any
> liabilities with respect to the copyrights, we ask member projects to
> take on responsibility for this prior to joining. It sounds like you may
> not have any special concerns, but would you like to have a phone call
> to discuss this in detail and to see if maybe there is some way we can help?
I think it was just healthy paranoia with respect to all things legal
that prompted that question. We think that we are happy to say that we
have no liabilities, outstanding or otherwise, nor reason for any such
liabilities to exist, but what we don't know is how robust a guarantee
we have to provide you to be assured that your due diligence process is
complete.
For what it's worth, darcs was written from scratch on the basis of
novel ideas by David. Furthermore, nobody has ever complained of a
potential copyright violation. But what about the slim chance that
somebody unwittingly wrote some new code which just so happens to be
problematic? Or the even slimmer chance that somebody deliberatly sent
us code that creates a liability? So what actions do we need to take
here? For example, should we chase down all of our contributors (note
that in practice, this has not worked out) and have them formally assert
that they are not violating anybody's intellectual property? Can we
take their willing contribution to an already clearly GPL'ed codebase to
be good enough. As an extreme, must we comb through our code and
somehow try to determine if something constitutes a potential copyright
violation? Or on the cheapest end, can we just say "we did not
knowingly commit any copyright infringments and we think it's unlikely
that our one-off contributors did"?
> > Christian also feels that complying with this in practice would be
> > impossible. As we understand it, our options are to (a) find a
> > Succesor to the SFC (b) create our own non-profit or (c) transfer
> > our assets/liabilities to the SFC. Could you give us a better idea
> > on how this works in practice (I don't forsee us leaving the
> > Conservancy, but it's useful to know anyway)?
>
> If no successor is initially found and the 60 days lapses, there is an
> additional automatic 60 day period to find another (in Section 8b). If
> still no successor is found (or established) darcs and the Conservancy
> can agree on additional periods. In other words, once you decide to
> terminate your relationship with the Conservancy, you have four months
> to find a successor or form your own, with the option of discussing
> additional periods with the Conservancy. Since no member project has yet
> to decide to leave the Conservancy, I can't tell you how this has worked
> out in the past. Do you have any particular worries about this?
Thanks. No particular worries and further questions on that point.
Also, some more questions from this time from Trent Buck:
| The contract says it it interpreted according to US law (para. 9).
| What, if any, are the consequences of
|
| - One or more Developers being citizens and residents in other
| countries?
|
| - The Project's principal office being located outside the US?
|
| Karen writes of (2b):
|
| > Note that developers of darcs, in their capacity as individuals (when
| > not representing darcs), still may engage in for-profit service
| > businesses related to their Free Software work. The work of darcs
| > itself must fit the guidelines, but individuals are free to act in
| > their own capacity in other endeavors.
|
| Similarly, does this contract restrict Developers in their capacity *as
| individuals* from violating para. 5 in other ways? For example, is it a
| problem if I personally advocate violating the DMCA?
|
| Regarding (2b), the Developers are delegated artistic and technical
| control of the Project, while SFC retains all other control (including
| financial). Does this mean the SFC can/will *force* the Developers to
| e.g. add a "click here to donate via paypal" button to the Darcs
| website? Or would such a decision fall under "artistic/technical
| direction"?
I'll note that we can easily arrange for the principle office to be in
the US.
Also rereading the agreement proper, I see this sentence which may
answer Trent's question "The Conservancy will only intervene in the
program activities to the extent the Project is not in
compliance with Paragraph 2(a) or Paragraph 5 of this Agreement", but I
thought I should check if you had anything to add.
Many thanks!
--
Eric Kow <http://www.nltg.brighton.ac.uk/home/Eric.Kow>
PGP Key ID: 08AC04F9
pgp9E0My4WOcF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
