Sorry for the delay in posting, I made a mistake in the posting process...
On 10/21/14, 2:18 PM, "E. Margarete Ziemer" <emzie...@sinenomine.net> wrote: >(I am taking the liberty of making a clarification on the behalf of the >Foundation Creation Committee/current Board of Directors:) > >The OpenAFS Foundation is and has been a stand alone incorporated >Foundation, >incorporated in the State of PA since May 20 2013. As the Foundation¹s >Secretary, I have a copy of that document on file. > >It will help to differentiate between the corporation/association issue >(thus legal/liability question) one the one hand, and the >for-profit/non-profit status (thus IRS tax status) on the other hand: >Regarding the former, and relevant to the present discussion: The OpenAFS >Foundation is a >legal corporation, thus we are long past the association stage. The >Foundation should enjoy all the legal protection any corporation in PA >receives. >Regarding the latter, and not(-so-)relevant to the present discourse: The >IRS and >profitability/tax status of the corporation is currently ³with the intent >to become a non-profit² until the IRS makes their determination to give or >not give us that status. > >(Now switching to personal response:) > >However, even though I am holding up the corporation status for the >OpenAFS Foundation, there might still be a difference in perceived or real >risk for the Foundation versus YFS as a for-profit corporation. It seems >much more likely that a third party would consider suing a for-profit >corporation for the potential benefit of getting a lot of money and/or >taking that corporation out of business. I see little incentive for a >third party to sue an (currently intended) non-profit corporation for >liability, if only because the non-profit doesn¹t play on the >profitability market. Yet, as was pointed out clearly by Gary, my >thoughts are nothing but conjecture, for I am not a lawyer, and a lawyer >would be the likely best-trusted authority, particularly if said lawyer >does his/her homework and looks for precedent cases in order to factually >back up perceived or real risk estimates. > >(Returning to OpenAFS Board mode:) > >I will put the lawyer and risk assessment topics on the agenda for the >next Foundation Board meeting. Thank you, all of you, for this discourse, >which has helped to sharpen my/our thoughts and focus on what exact and >unambiguous questions would/will have to be posed to a lawyer. While none >of us is a lawyer, we can, together, hammer out the exact questions. >Based on the discussion thus far, what do y'all think those questions >should >be, precisely? > >Best, >E. Margarete Ziemer > > > > > >On 10/21/14, 1:10 PM, "Jeffrey Altman" <jalt...@secure-endpoints.com> >wrote: > >>Stephen, > ><snip> > >> >>The legal liability issues is a subject that I have raised since joining >>the Elders. It was one of the reasons we wanted a stand alone >>incorporated Foundation instead of an unincorporated association which >>is how OpenAFS operates today. Being able to sign binaries is also one >>of the reasons that we could not make use of one of the open source >>umbrella organizations since those organizations cannot isolate >>liability risks between projects. >> >>Jeffrey Altman >
