Isaac David <[email protected]> writes: > A hypothetical deal between Parabola and Community Cube could (and > should!) specify that sort of separation of responsibilities and > liabilities. Needless to say Parabola isn't responsible for the > Community Cube project as a whole, regardless of whether they decide > to make a deal with Parabola or hire some of its hackers offlist or > simply make an OS image on their own. In any case they shouldn't be > impeded to tell the world what distro they are using, and there's a > chance this could result in a reputation boost for Parabola if things > unfold optimally.
parabola can't take responsibilities by itself, since it doesn't exist as a legal entity (we may be scamming CC too :P) i think any deal with CC would have to be between CC and individual parabola hackers, but any possible liability would have to be discussed collectively beforehand :) IMO it should be clear that: * parabola hackers only develop a certain set of features needed by the CC project. afaict it's just about the bootloader for some arm boards, whose resulting patches may be applicable to the bootloaders for other distros? * parabola as a project can't be responsible for anything nor receives any payment. * parabola hackers hired for this job can't be responsible for anything else than develop the certain set of features (i don't know how to phrase it, i guess it's the standard limitation of liability / warranty from licenses.) * any patch or software developed must be released under a free software license. if it's a patch, under the same license of the upstream project, if it's software, under a copyleft license. do you think this is correct or missing anything? -- http://utopia.partidopirata.com.ar/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.parabola.nu/mailman/listinfo/dev
