Re: Skolelinux and the "Debian Labs" idea
On 2003-10-09, Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> wrote:
>> > non-free on such machines? Unpackaged stuff? Stuff packaged locally? LSB
>> > stuff? Proprietary stuff like win4lin or CrossoverOffice?
>> non-free/proprietary stuff, better not. =20
>
> Even stuff packaged in non-free? How about stuff they maintain in
> non-free?
non-free is not part of Debian.
>> Unpackaged/LSB, I think so, yeah.
>
> How about unpackaged stuff that they think's free, but debian-legal
> doesn't?
It would be unusual if debian-legal had actually taken a look at it?
On this issue, I think a small amount of things like this would be OK,
but too much would be bad. Maybe the developers should spend a
certain percentage of their time working on Debian proper? But maybe
this gets too nit-picky.
> There are tax implications here [1]. The money goes:
>
> donator * -> SPI * -> Lab -> employee *
> -> expenses
> -> profits *
>
> with each "*" representing a point at which the government could end up
> taking a cut. SPI being a tax-exempt non-profit allows the first to *'s to
> disappear, if the appropriate rules are followed. ...
IANAL, but I believe that according to US law there are limits on who
non-profits can give money to: if the lab is not a non-profit
corporation, SPI could not (in my understanding) give money to the
lab. OTOH, SPI could surely purchase services?
Could somebody with a better understanding of the law help here?
(Maybe that's you, aj, I'm just not sure.)
> The rules for donations are usually something like requiring they further
> the organisations interest, and aren't a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
If I understand you correctly, these are the rules for SPI to receive
donations, not for SPI to give money to other groups, right?
Peace,
Dylan
Reply to: