On 4/5/26 7:42 PM, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
On Sun, Apr 5, 2026 at 6:39 PM Thomas Goirand <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Let's say the legal entity is declared illegal or dissolved by a judge.
The whole Debian project (and each of us) would be in danger if we were
to attempt ignoring the judge decision and continue to contribute to
Debian (at least, that's how it works in France).
IANAL, but my understanding is that is not necessarily how it works in
the different jurisdictions of the US. Debian is (probably) considered
something called an unincorporated association, and only some US states
consider those separate entities from the individuals who comprise
them. In the states that don't consider them separate, all volunteers
could potentially be held personally responsible for the actions of the
organization. (The case law on this varies about how involved you need
to have been with whatever action was taken; some, simply being an
active part of the organization is sufficient.)
This is a key deterministic in the manner of decisions surrounding how
to brace, defend, and/or prepare the project from legal actions against
'Unincorporated Associations' (RUUNAA & 28a U.S. Code Court Rule 23.2
vs. actual applications of Case Law surrounding 'Diversity Jurisdiction'
(III.S2.C1.3.5. U.S.).
This is something I imagine to likely be replicated in other countries,
though I cannot testify to such.
This area can get rather complicated, ideally this thread should include
the counsel of SPI in order that we can establish an actual
understanding of what would be either a defensive or offensive strategy
or both in parallel.
I would ask for the pausing this dialogue until the conversation of
desire vs. legality occurs specific to legal counsel which we have
access toward. From there we push towards a concentrated direction in
the offensive or build walls in the defensive.
--
--
Be well,
-Donald
--
-
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Donald Norwood
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ B7A1 5F45 5B28 7F38 4174
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ D5E9 E5EC 4AC9 BD62 7B05
