On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 12:52 PM, Roy Bamford <neddyseag...@gentoo.org> wrote: > As far as I am aware, under the current organisation there is no legal > connection between the Gentoo Foundation Inc., and the Gentoo > distribution.
True, but that doesn't mean that the Foundation might not be found liable for things done using Foundation property, like servers, domain names, and trademarks - especially if the Foundation has prior knowledge of these actions. I'm not sure the car example was accurate, since in this case the distribution is being facilitated using Foundation property and clearly at this point the Foundation has knowledge that it is occurring. Regardless of who can get sued, we should comply with the GPL regardless. To that end I agree that we should refrain from shipping historical binaries unless we also tarball portage and the distfiles from the same period of time. I definitely agree with his suggestion that we should always make both available online simultaneously to avoid the 3-year rule. I'm sure that if the FSF were concerned they'd ask us nicely before suing anybody - especially since we are an FOSS effort ourselves that tries to comply with the GPL/etc. So, the risk is low, but that isn't a reason not to comply. Does anybody have a strong objection to removing historical binary distributions of Gentoo on any Gentoo-controlled/linked servers, or general disagreement with Duncan's proposal? I don't really want to get sidetracked into a debate about the boundaries between Council/Trustees/Foundation/Distro unless there is an actual disagreement on the matter at hand. Rich
