On Fri, 22 Aug 1997 12:21:26 -0500, Paul Serice wrote:
Yes you have. I'm saying the work done be the people outside the US
is now asscoiated with a US entity. It's not 'theirs' anymore,
while it is in the US.
O.k., I think I see where you're coming from. That's just not the
way it works!
First, those folks freely associate their work with Debian.
But up until Debian Inc. their was no legal thing called Debian to assiciate
with!
Second, their work is still theirs unless and until they assign the
copyright to, for example, Debian -- which I understand is not done.
Exactly. So no they have a direct link to this Debian 'person' even though the
product, and liabity remains theirs.
Until the copyright is assigned, they get the same international
protection as any other copyright holder, and the work is still
theirs.
As an anarchist, surely you understand that all property is a
creature of the state that creates and recognizes it.
As an anarco-capitalist (minarchist if you wanna get technical) I understand
the
state does not inherently own everything. In fact it owns nothing. (No matter
what it
may think)
Thus, either
before or after incorporation, the only reason their work is still
theirs inside the United States is because the U.S. recognizes and
is willing to enforce their rights.
A governments willingness to do or not do something does not change the factual
base of the situation. It is theirs because all human beings are born upon this
earth
with an irrevocable right their own property.
So, even if you are right, being
associated with a US entity in the US is likely to give rise to more
property rights, not fewer.
Homey don't play that. They can be sued through Debian Inc, where as before the
US or any state would have a difficult time assertaining jurisdiction. In an
example
you may find more appeling Debian Inc could be sued because of something a
foriegn developer has done.
What I'm trying to tell you is that anarchy requires the abolition of
personal property, and for you to care one way or the other about
such property is, well, hypocritical. Perhaps you're actually a
nihilist.
That is anarcho-socialism, and as far as I'm concern damn stupid. How you can
enforce complete communual living and be without government is assinine. That
is
a utopic theory for people that don't want to deal with reality.
Even though you've heard me mention the term, I don't believe in collectism.
(certainly not if it is forced) But what Debian IS, is a communal project that
is
'owned' (if you can consider it property) by the developers as a whole. What we
now have is a legal person called Debian, that has no place in a project like
this. It
goes against the Debian principal. By Bruces actions it is becoming more
commercialized, and the corp is just a vehicle for that.
If you want a commercial distribution, go to Redhat etc. I'm with Debian
because of
it's supposed openness, and non-commercialism.
I'm not anti commercialism! I own my own damn business for god stakes! But
THAT IS NOT WHAT DEBIAN IS ABOUT.
If you would like to take this anarchy discussion off the list, I'll
be happy to oblige.
I mentioned my politics not to start a discussion about them but to make a
point,
that some of us have moral objections based on where Debian is now heading, and
as a collectivly 'owned' free project they should definatly be considered.
Not because they are mine, and I am special, but becasue they fall inline with
the
original Debian philosphy.
If I make a package tonight, and submited it, am I then consider an
employee (agent, memeber, whatever) of that corp?
O.k., this is the right question.
No, and therefor it means nothing to my liability.
But, this is the wrong answer.
Here's a hint, when you are dealing with legal problems, the answer
is almost always, Well, it depends. No attorney is going to be
bullied away from a lawsuit by your ipse dixit that you have no
liability especially when perfectly good theories exist for making
you pay, e.g., under partnership law, as a joint venture, or under
some other theory relating to purely social organization about which
I know nothing.
Never mind the good theories. What about the bad ones that succeed.
For example, now, (unless things have changed) they can get abortion
protestors under RICO -- a federal racketerring law. You just never
know. It's hard for any attorney in the planning stages to
anticipate such a theory.
So your very valid point is that the law bascilly is whatever the prosicutor
decides it
is for the day. That's my point also. Anything is possible in this very screwed
up
country. But the creation of a legal entity and can make this worse in our
situation.
If I honestly thought that Deiban Inc could serve a valid purpose I would
bregrudingly agree. But it does not.
Actually, if you made a package tonight, it wouldn't matter because
the corporation would shield you from liability. Why is the
