From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30046 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 19:46:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-maintainers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-maintainers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29984 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 19:46:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:46:00 -0000 From: Peter Vandenabeele To: eCos Maintainers Subject: (forw) Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting Message-ID: <20030226204607.P25393@mind.be> Reply-To: Peter Vandenabeele Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="lc9FT7cWel8HagAv" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Organisation: Mind NV -- http://mind.be/ -- Leuven/Belgium X-Extra: Mind is looking for Embedded Developers (Linux, eCos, JVM) X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 826 Dear ecos-maintainers, FYI, I forward a probably relevant discussion from the SPI list. The comments of Ted Ts'o seem very relevant to me. How does the Redhat Copyright assignment stand to this discussion (on "imdenification") ? Also note the Ted explicitely suggests using a corporation (and not a not for profit) for holding Copyright, because it is much more capable of defending itself and holding the _persons_ non-liable. e.g. in Belgium, all members of a not-for-profit, like the badminton club that I am a member of, are all, fully and individually liable if a player would get hurt, when playing without insurance, this covers both the "organizers" of the club, but even all individual members. Sorry I did send the full text (dont' know how to get the pointer to this quickly). Hope this helps, Peter --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 5019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: peter.vandenabeele@mind.be Received: (qmail 32199 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 04:47:50 -0000 Received: from ione.mind.be ([62.166.230.83]) (envelope-sender ) by cupido.intern.mind.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Feb 2003 04:47:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 11539 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 05:47:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO purcel.spi-inc.org) (65.125.64.185) by ione.mind.be with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 05:47:02 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=purcel.spi-inc.org ident=list) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18nWuk-0000in-00; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:41:58 -0600 Received: from dhcp16621067.indy.rr.com ([24.166.21.67] helo=redwald.deadbeast.net) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18nWrO-0000gb-00 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 22:38:30 -0600 Received: by redwald.deadbeast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5827264136; Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:38:28 -0500 (EST) From: Branden Robinson / SPI Treasurer To: Jonas Oberg Cc: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Subject: Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting Message-ID: <20030225043827.GM11626@deadbeast.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jonas Oberg , spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org References: <20030206224433.GY17341@deadbeast.net> <873cmesq4b.fsf@polgara.coyote.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="fNagykWcDoSVAmSd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <873cmesq4b.fsf@polgara.coyote.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i Delivered-To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Sender: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org Errors-To: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org X-BeenThere: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussions related to Software in the Public Interest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:38:28 -0500 --fNagykWcDoSVAmSd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 1793 Hello, Mr. Oberg: I am forwarding this message to the spi-general list for discussion among our membership. Thanks for writing! On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 09:23:32PM +0100, Jonas Oberg wrote: > Hi Branden, could you forward this to whoever is appropriate? >=20 > I read from the IRC log from the board meeting of the 4th of february > that the SPI is considering accepting "copyright assignments", similar > to those that the Free Software Foundation North America uses. >=20 > This seems like a good idea to me and I encourage it. I would however > also point you to http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/fla/ which is the > Fiduciary Licence Agreement (FLA) developed by the FSF Europe in > coordination with, among others, Eben Moglen. >=20 > It addresses the same issues as the Copyright Assignment that the FSF > NA uses, but is crafted in a way that allows it to be used also for > the continental European Droit d'Auteur authorship tradition, which is > different than the anglo-american copyright system used by the US. >=20 > The FSF NA is currently looking at using the FLA, or some derivative > thereof, for their own "copyright assignments", but they have not > decided yet and it is a low-proprity issue since the normal "copyright > assignments" work well enough. >=20 > If the SPI would accept similar contracts, I would recommend that you > have a look at the FLA. I believe that it will be more useful for you > than the older "copyright assignment" contracts. Please see the web > pages for more information, and email fla@fsfeurope.org with any > questions. They can also assist you if you would be interested in > using the FLA as a contract for the SPI. --=20 G. Branden Robinson, Treasurer Software in the Public Interest, Inc. treasurer@spi-inc.org http://www.spi-inc.org/ --fNagykWcDoSVAmSd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 197 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAj5a80MACgkQ6kxmHytGonyUxQCfRR85UaQMEu5QMTmrD0hXPbU3 nPsAoKcicmErCky+bcgQqabTsj9U7vwv =alNY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --fNagykWcDoSVAmSd-- _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 5161 Return-Path: Delivered-To: peter.vandenabeele@mind.be Received: (qmail 4781 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 18:02:48 -0000 Received: from ione.mind.be ([62.166.230.83]) (envelope-sender ) by cupido.intern.mind.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 25 Feb 2003 18:02:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 13178 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2003 19:01:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO purcel.spi-inc.org) (65.125.64.185) by ione.mind.be with SMTP; 25 Feb 2003 19:01:59 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=purcel.spi-inc.org ident=list) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18njIi-0006YM-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:55:32 -0600 Received: from thunk.org ([140.239.227.29] helo=thunker.thunk.org) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18njI5-0006Wk-00 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:54:54 -0600 Received: from [216.175.175.162] (helo=think.thunk.org) authenticated as tytso by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp (tls_cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18njHo-0005KP-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:54:37 -0500 Received: from tytso by think.thunk.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18njHo-0004DE-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:54:36 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Subject: Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting Message-ID: <20030225175435.GB2802@think.thunk.org> References: <20030206224433.GY17341@deadbeast.net> <873cmesq4b.fsf@polgara.coyote.org> <20030225043827.GM11626@deadbeast.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030225043827.GM11626@deadbeast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Delivered-To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Sender: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org Errors-To: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org X-BeenThere: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussions related to Software in the Public Interest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:54:36 -0500 Content-length: 2463 One comment about the U.S. versions of such a copyright assignment. I would strongly suggest that any such legal wording be similar to the one which the FSF accepted from IBM when IBM donated the s390 changes to the binutils package: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/bug-binutils/2000-q3/msg00000.html ... and not based on the default templates distributed by the FSF. In particular, the offending words which you will note the IBM lawyers removed from the assignment agreement referenced above are: "... I hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers, employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages (including attorney's reasonable fees) asserted by or paid to any party on account of a breach or alleged breach of the foregoing warranty." Why is this bad? An explanation can be found at this web page: http://ohwg.cap.gov/jag/indemnify.html. In part: "Indemnification means you agree to step into the shoes of the person you have agreed to indemnify and suffer in their place whatever consequences they were to suffer because of something happening (literally to protect them from being "damned"). That includes financial suffering - paying the bills to repair or replace damaged things; paying the judgment a court assesses them for injury to a third party; sometimes paying a fine levied against them; anything short of imprisonment for their own direct criminal conduct. Anyone want to bet their own house and savings?" A good rule of thumb is that any time you see a legal agreement with the word "indemnify", that should be an immediate red flag, and you should ideally refuse to sign such an agreement before getting competent legal advice. If I'm going to write software, and donate my efforts and my intellectual property the Open Software community, that's my choice. I've done this on many occasions. But one thing that I will NOT do after making such a free donation of my efforts is to sign something which explicitly puts my house and all of my savings at risk. If IBM refused to put its corporate assets at risk when it donated the s390 binutils changes to the FSF, why should I risk mine? As a result, I will refuse to donate code to any project which requires me to sign an agreement with similar language. - Ted _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 4317 Return-Path: Delivered-To: peter.vandenabeele@mind.be Received: (qmail 7796 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 00:36:14 -0000 Received: from ione.mind.be ([62.166.230.83]) (envelope-sender ) by cupido.intern.mind.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 26 Feb 2003 00:36:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 14117 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 01:35:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO purcel.spi-inc.org) (65.125.64.185) by ione.mind.be with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 01:35:25 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=purcel.spi-inc.org ident=list) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18npTW-0000ad-00; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:31:06 -0600 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by purcel.spi-inc.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18npRo-0000YW-00 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:29:21 -0600 Received: (qmail 22470 invoked by uid 0); 26 Feb 2003 00:28:48 -0000 Received: from v3.vpn.lrz-muenchen.de (HELO blackbird.oase.mhn.de) (129.187.48.3) by mail.gmx.net (mp015-rz3) with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 00:28:48 -0000 Received: from mbanck by blackbird.oase.mhn.de with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18npRG-0000S0-00 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:28:46 +0100 To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Subject: Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting Message-ID: <20030226002845.GA1054@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> Mail-Followup-To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org References: <20030206224433.GY17341@deadbeast.net> <873cmesq4b.fsf@polgara.coyote.org> <20030225043827.GM11626@deadbeast.net> <20030225175435.GB2802@think.thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030225175435.GB2802@think.thunk.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Michael Banck Delivered-To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Sender: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org Errors-To: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org X-BeenThere: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussions related to Software in the Public Interest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 01:28:46 +0100 --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 920 On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:54:36PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > If I'm going to write software, and donate my efforts and my > intellectual property the Open Software community, that's my choice. > I've done this on many occasions. But one thing that I will NOT do > after making such a free donation of my efforts is to sign something > which explicitly puts my house and all of my savings at risk. If IBM > refused to put its corporate assets at risk when it donated the s390 > binutils changes to the FSF, why should I risk mine? As a result, I > will refuse to donate code to any project which requires me to sign an > agreement with similar language. Fair enough. But on the other hand, I guess SPI has to decide whether *it* wants to take up any risks and stand up for whatever code it accepted. What happens if some company decides they have a patent on something and tries to sue us into oblivion? Michael --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 189 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+XAo9mHaJYZ7RAb8RAhBfAKCl809aivJUlnqz2Nb2hDFnCd1lNQCglXa2 Cft+qSCNtYbkxwSRLfR5g4E= =neKa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --YiEDa0DAkWCtVeE4-- _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 4155 Return-Path: Delivered-To: peter.vandenabeele@mind.be Received: (qmail 10171 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 09:08:26 -0000 Received: from ione.mind.be ([62.166.230.83]) (envelope-sender ) by cupido.intern.mind.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 26 Feb 2003 09:08:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 14686 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 10:07:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO purcel.spi-inc.org) (65.125.64.185) by ione.mind.be with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 10:07:38 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=purcel.spi-inc.org ident=list) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18nxV2-00085X-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:05:12 -0600 Received: from smtp-out-4.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.23] helo=mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18nxSe-00084i-00 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 03:02:44 -0600 Received: from mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.193) by mel-rto4.wanadoo.fr (6.7.015) id 3E0C33FD0269439E for spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:02:08 +0100 Received: from iliana (81.49.169.71) by mel-rta10.wanadoo.fr (6.7.015) id 3E26DAA6016F920C for spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:02:08 +0100 Received: from luther by iliana with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18nxS2-0000Zr-00 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:02:06 +0100 To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Subject: Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting Message-ID: <20030226090206.GA2194@iliana> References: <20030206224433.GY17341@deadbeast.net> <873cmesq4b.fsf@polgara.coyote.org> <20030225043827.GM11626@deadbeast.net> <20030225175435.GB2802@think.thunk.org> <20030226002845.GA1054@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030226002845.GA1054@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i From: Sven Luther Delivered-To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Sender: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org Errors-To: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org X-BeenThere: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussions related to Software in the Public Interest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:02:06 +0100 Content-length: 1231 On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:28:46AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:54:36PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > If I'm going to write software, and donate my efforts and my > > intellectual property the Open Software community, that's my choice. > > I've done this on many occasions. But one thing that I will NOT do > > after making such a free donation of my efforts is to sign something > > which explicitly puts my house and all of my savings at risk. If IBM > > refused to put its corporate assets at risk when it donated the s390 > > binutils changes to the FSF, why should I risk mine? As a result, I > > will refuse to donate code to any project which requires me to sign an > > agreement with similar language. > > Fair enough. But on the other hand, I guess SPI has to decide whether > *it* wants to take up any risks and stand up for whatever code it > accepted. What happens if some company decides they have a patent on > something and tries to sue us into oblivion? We say we didn't know and remove the code ? Friendly, Sven Luther _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 5289 Return-Path: Delivered-To: peter.vandenabeele@mind.be Received: (qmail 11860 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 15:04:54 -0000 Received: from ione.mind.be ([62.166.230.83]) (envelope-sender ) by cupido.intern.mind.be (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 26 Feb 2003 15:04:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 15356 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 16:04:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO purcel.spi-inc.org) (65.125.64.185) by ione.mind.be with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 16:04:05 -0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=purcel.spi-inc.org ident=list) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18o32F-0001tw-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:59:51 -0600 Received: from thunk.org ([140.239.227.29] helo=thunker.thunk.org) by purcel.spi-inc.org with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 18o30o-0001tG-00 for ; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:58:22 -0600 Received: from [216.175.175.162] (helo=think.thunk.org) authenticated as tytso by thunker.thunk.org with asmtp (tls_cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18o30m-0003Af-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:58:20 -0500 Received: from tytso by think.thunk.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18o30m-0006GV-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:58:20 -0500 From: Theodore Ts'o To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Subject: Re: [Spi-private] IRC log from 2003-02-04 SPI Board meeting Message-ID: <20030226145820.GB23962@think.thunk.org> References: <20030206224433.GY17341@deadbeast.net> <873cmesq4b.fsf@polgara.coyote.org> <20030225043827.GM11626@deadbeast.net> <20030225175435.GB2802@think.thunk.org> <20030226002845.GA1054@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030226002845.GA1054@blackbird.oase.mhn.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Delivered-To: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org Sender: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org Errors-To: spi-general-admin@lists.spi-inc.org X-BeenThere: spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: General discussions related to Software in the Public Interest List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:58:20 -0500 Content-length: 2496 On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 01:28:46AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote: > Fair enough. But on the other hand, I guess SPI has to decide whether > *it* wants to take up any risks and stand up for whatever code it > accepted. What happens if some company decides they have a patent on > something and tries to sue us into oblivion? Well, life is full of tradeoffs. One advantage of a distributed copyright ownership is that it makes life a lot harder for some company who has a patent on something to sue someone into oblivion. To take a concrete example, which would get elicit more world-wide sympathy, and which would be harder to do? 1) For an big, multi-billion dollar U.S. company to sue an innocent 17-year boy in Norway, under Norwegian laws? (Replace 17-year boy with 26-year old Russian with two children, aged two-and-a-half and three months for another example.) 2) Or for that same company to sue a faceless non-profit corporation which most people (and certainly all non-geeks) haven't heard of before, in a U.S. courtroom? Think about that, for a moment. If you want to protect the assets of the SPI, then contact a good lawyer, and ask him/her to help you set up a subsidary, or sister corporation to hold the IPR that you're so interested in centralizing, but which otherwise has little to no assets. It needs to be separate enough that lawsuits against it can't pierce the corporate liability shield, but which SPI (and other non-profit organizations) could choose to funnel money to it via donations if it needs to defend itself in court. (Or such organizations could donate legal help directly to specific cases, as the EFF has done from time to time.) The bottom line is a good lawyer should be able to help the SPI use corporations they way they were meant to be used; to help individuals to duck out of being held personally liable. It's important to remember that the same legal rules that allow a company to be sued for millions for making coffee too hot also has provisions that allow rich people to shield their personal wealth from much of that liability. If the SPI wants to do something like centralize copyright holdings (and I'm really not convinced it's worth it), the least it can do is to use similar techniques to protect individual open source contributors' assets as much as possible. - Ted _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list Spi-general@lists.spi-inc.org http://lists.spi-inc.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/spi-general --lc9FT7cWel8HagAv--