On Fri, 22 Aug 97 20:48 PDT, Bruce Perens wrote: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> It may not. An employee is working under the supervision of the >> corporation: he's "just following orders". The corporation is presumed to >> be checking his work, so if his screwups get out it is held liable. Can you >> argue that the maintainers are acting under your control and supervision? > >Yes. These people have been delegated a specific set of programs to >work on by an staff member I appointed. Their job is to act on behalf >of the corporation in maintaining those programs, which are provided to >them by third parties not associated with Debian in most cases.
This won't even make it past the court room door. >Some of >the maintainers do assign copyrights to SPI. If necessary I can start >documenting in a more formal way that these people are following the >orders of a director of the corporation, and even give them contracts. >We also have an employer ID if it is necessary to go that far. >It's important to note that the corporation distributes the software, >not the individuals. No matter how much you seem to like the idea, the corporation does not distribute Debian. It makes the entirty of the packages available. I'm sure the packages are also indivigually made available via the maintainers. >> I was arguing that there is no contract and therefore no duty. >> I don't know of any case law on that, though. > >There is at least an implicit contract when we give them access to our >internal systems to perform work for us. We could make it explicit. > >There is also some new law on liability of volunteers this year. Its major >thrust was to remove liability from emergency services volunteers, such as >radio hams who are providing communications in a disaster situation. I don't >know how it effects other sorts of volunteers. > >> Does SPI have an attorney? Have you discussed these issues with her? > >Yes, and the attorney formed the corporation for us. The main reason for >forming the corporation was so that we could pursue grants to work on free >software, not to protect us from liability. I will ask the attorney to make >suggestions on how we can firm up liability protection for the members. You've made the point even more clear, Bruce. In order to provide the legal protection Debian Inc. is claiming it can you must move everything towards a strict commercial type enviorment. Debian, a *free* software distribution, and Debian Inc. can never be one in the same. If you want to have SPI, to have tax exempt status, and get grants, and distribute cd roms, have SPI do it as SPI, and not as Debian! ------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project ------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214 http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
