I. Am 17/02/11 03:48, schrieb Rajko M.:
On Wednesday, February 16, 2011 06:54:54 pm Satoru Matsumoto wrote:
What contributors really want is not a guarantee by the project, but a feeling of ease or trust 'I'm not walking alone. When I face any trouble, I'll be helped by others, as long as I help others when they fase troubles.'
What guarantee can be given by project that is not legal entity? That is why I surgested to split the discussion to a possible gain[1] of the unborn foundation[2]
On the other hand, if someone with enough financial coverage stands behind contributors with such guarantee, don't you think that it will actually attract those seeking revenue from law suits?
If I look at the many costly de:Abmahnungen (~warnings/call to order) that private persons or small trader get from lawyers in Germany for using illegal contracts of annex or trademarks of others on one hand (e. g. on ebay) and the big companies using clearly illegal paragraphs for a long time on the other hand - I would doubt it. The probability that the target could hit back or at least will be able to defend its self seems to me a basic parameter in the calculation of the aggressor, too. And if there is no legal eternity the aggressor might also think of suing all the participants of the openSUSE community (in German law maybe as a BGB-Gesellschaft/Gesellschaft bürgerlichen Rechts). II. But I think the discussion has come to the point that the people of the openSUSE Weekly News team (as long as they are represented in this thread) more wanted to act in 'the right way'. So if they want to publish the openSUSE Weekly News under a (US- or other) Corporate Commons License what do they need? 1. Maybe a green light of the board (was that really the problem jet?). 2. If they want to conclude the (hole?/most parts of the) work of other people the consent of those other persons and maybe also that those persons also publish under the/a CC license. But what can the board do about that? I do not think that the board should try to 'order' other persons to publish under a specific license - they might just act stubborn and publish their work only on their own website and will be no longer willing to let their work be included in the openSUSE Weekly News. So if II.1. is no problem than II.2 should in my mind be handled by the openSUSE Weekly New team on their own. Just my thoughts about it - without costs and without liability higher than a normal person's thoughts are [2]...). Regards Martin [1] This seems to be the first point "Objective of the Foundation" in the agenda on http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Foundation/Topics and the theme of the working paper/ proposal on http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Foundation [2]or other form of artificial person/legal body/legal person -> this seems to be the second point "The legal form of the foundation" in the argenda on http://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Foundation/Topics and the theme of the working paper on http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Foundation_legal_form [3] See § 675 section II Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch http://dejure.org/gesetze/BGB/675.html (de with decissons) http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_bgb/englisch_bgb.html#BGBengl_000... (en) -- - Martin Seidler - openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org