John Goerzen writes ("Re: Who can make binding legal agreements"):
> * If a member project engages in activities that would jeopardize
> SPI's classification as a non-profit entity
Things of that kind would be using SPI property or funds for
unsuitable activities. Note that if Debian do it separately, without
our support or funding, then SPI has no problem. SPI's resources are
only for charitable purposes, but that doesn't infect the whole of
each of our associated projects.
(NB, associated projects, not member projects. They're not members in
any normal sense.)
> * If a member project engages in illegal activities or presents
> significant legal exposure to the organization
Obviously if Debian used SPI property (eg, the servers) for copyright
infringement we'd have to step in and stop that. But copyright
infringement is possible only if you don't have the permission of the
copyright holder. Here Sun have told Debian repeatedly that they
approve, so obviously it's not infringement; if Sun should change
their mind then obviously Debian would stop distributing the software
(and thus stop using SPI's property to do so) immediately.
> First of all, corporate winds can change. But really my point is not
> that SPI should have rejected this license. My point is that SPI should
> have been consulted about the indemnification so that we could get the
> advice of our attorney, and perhaps based on his feedback, either raise
> concerns about it (or not).
SPI has not indemnified anyone. We are not a party to the licence.
Ian.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
