Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.5)
email@example.com (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 03.04.98 in <Pine.LNX.3.96.980403123941.2421Sfirstname.lastname@example.org>:
> On Fri, 3 Apr 1998, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > >SPI is incorporated in the US, so none of your discussion of the
> > >British tax laws is of any consequence. Ian, as project leader,
> > >collects no money and has no control over SPI, and should have no
> > >liability here or at home.
> > Sorry, but that is wishful thinking. I'm not talking about SPI but about
> > Debian; as I've already explained, there is at lest an arguable case
> > that Debian could be regarded as being controlled from Britain - that
> > makes Ian potentially liable. We can't afford to pay lawyers to argue
> > the point here and in every country where the question might arise.
> But my point was the Debian does not control any money, SPI does, at our
> behest. That is what it was constructed for.
Yes, and his point was that the proposed constitution can be interpreted
to say otherwise. That is the problem.
Or, in other words, if Debian controls what SPI does with that money, then
we have a problem in that the tax authorities will try to claim that it's
our money, not SPI's.
> Which is just another reason that statements about our relationship with
> SPI should never appear in our constitution. (which I have already argued
> on other grounds)
> The Debian Distribution, (the only thing that Debian developers can be
> held accountable for) is copyright SPI. As the copyright holder, they are
What we can held accountable for is something the tax people will decide
for themselves. Then we can invest $$$ into lawyers to persuade them they
Better to avoid this in the first place.
> the legal entity that take the heat for the distribution. "Officers" of
> the Debian organization do not handle or decide in matters of money.
Just make certain the constitution doesn't say otherwise.
> > When you are dealing with tax law, you need to think of what the relevant
> > tax authorities would say, not what you think ought to be the case.
> Tax authorities are only of concern if there is any money in question.
> With Debian, there isn't.
There is. It's on the SPI account. *If* the tax people decide it belongs
to us, they'll make us pay for it. We don't want to get into that fight,
so we have to make clear that we don't own that money. Currently, we're
not clear enough on that, I believe.
For example, we're telling people that Debian accepts donations. The tax
people will interpret this as those donations becoming Debian's property.
I believe we need to say something like "No, Debian doesn't accept
donations. SPI does. No, it's not our money."
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org