From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Bradley M. Kuhn" Subject: Re: git as an sfc member project Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:03:55 -0400 Organization: Software Freedom Conservancy Message-ID: <87wrovpbtw.fsf@ebb.org> References: <20101022183027.GA12124@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20101027070348.GF15635@ece.pdx.edu> <20101027110807.GB3995@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Tait , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Nov 03 00:15:25 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PDQ4Y-0002Hz-VR for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Nov 2010 00:15:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751647Ab0KBXPL (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:15:11 -0400 Received: from catholic.ebb.org ([67.207.139.67]:57004 "EHLO catholic.ebb.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751414Ab0KBXPK (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:15:10 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 437 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 19:15:09 EDT Received: from localhost (atheist.ebb.org [216.254.72.109]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by catholic.ebb.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7922A48422; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 19:07:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Archive: no X-No-Archive: yes In-Reply-To: <20101027110807.GB3995@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Wed, 27 Oct 2010 04:08:07 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org X-Gmane-Expiry: 2010-11-17 Archived-At: >> > The draft agreement is here: >> > http://peff.net/git-sponsorship-agreement.pdf > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:03:48AM -0700, Tait wrote: >> This agreement brings up one concern for me. It would make officially >> make git a United States project based out of New York, and therefore >> subject to the laws of New York and the United States. Among whatever >> other laws apply, will be export restrictions and patent law. I don't >> know whether any part(s) of git would be a concern under those laws >> (and I haven't needed to care, until now). Is legal advice for issues >> like this part of the services SFC can provide? Jeff King wrote on the 27th of October: > I am not sure that joining the SFC is going to make any difference > with respect to those things. Developers and distributors of the > software in the United States were already subject to such laws, and I > don't see how our dealing with the SFC would create any special > obligation for those outside the US. In particular, it seems to me > that git as a legal entity signing this agreement as the SFC (which > legally is really just an agreement between the SFC and a few members > of the project) is different from git as a community of individuals > who happen to contribute and distribute code. SFC will not own any > copyrights, nor take any responsibility for distribution. I believe what Jeff says is basically correct. The "Git Project" will be part of a non-profit in New York, and it's true that the Git Project could be therefore be subject to the laws of New York. However, it isn't that much different of some Git developers being in New York and being subject thereto. Developers outside the USA continue to operate as volunteers for the project and aren't impacted any more than they already are participating in an unincorporated project. Nevertheless, I'm going to check in with Conservancy's lawyers to verify there are no serious disadvantages to Git joining a USA non-profit that weren't already the case anyway since some developers are in the USA anyway. I'll respond back when I hear from them. -- Bradley M. Kuhn, Executive Director, Software Freedom Conservancy