On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
>
> > 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.
Very nicely put, Gier. And our due diligence during the incubation
process is meant to go even further, to help reduce the odds that we'd
ever have the codebase yanked.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
