On Jan 13, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
All legal matters are for the Board and the Foundation's attorneys to address.
Regarding audits ...
There is a presumption of innocence in our legal system. I do not believe
that due diligence requires an a priori presumption of fraud, and a
investigation to "prove" its absence. Nor do I believe that due diligence
requires all code to be subjected to http://www.catb.org/~esr/comparator/
across all published codebases, although that would be an interesting
project.
As I understand it, if we receive a signed CLA or Software Grant, there is a
presumption that they had the right to provide it.
Yes, because it would be fraud otherwise on the part of the signer or grantor. Of course, IANAL, but I think that there is no other rational way to operate. When you get that stolen car that's been reasonably represented as legit, you don't do extensive searches for indications of VIN alteration, do you? No? You do the basic due diligence (All papers appear to be in order?) and move on.
If the car was stolen and the police find it, you may be out of the money given to the fraudster, but you aren't going to jail for grand theft.
In this case, we'd be out of the codebase and the time spent around it, but we probably aren't liable if we had no inkling there was a problem and documented good faith efforts.
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr 203-247-1713(m) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
