"Michael Renzmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure, but SFC's pumping of itself as a liability protection > > makes it sound like they have taken out insurance, although I can't > > find any details of it. On the other hand, they might just be > > describing the nature of a corporation. > > Can you please explain the meaning of the above two sentences a bit more?
SFC's web site says http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/ "These benefits include, most notably, protection from personal liability for project developers." This sounds to me like SFC might have bought the indemnity insurance that has been suggested to SPI a few times, but dismissed as too expensive or not desirable. Alternatively, SFC might just be describing the protection of having a corporation responsible, which SPI also has. Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:39:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > > (although now I notice that SPI's web site copyright terms appear to > > be missing, at least since the last redesign... oops?). > > To be fair, the old web site didn't mention a license either, AFAICT. I meant that I hadn't checked the old web site, not that it vanished. Hope that explains, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ Spi-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
