Re: Show me the money Re: Donations to Debian
> >The presence of developers and servers in Germany does not limit the
> >ability of the American legal system to reach the developers in the
> >U.S. So, yes, despite developers in Germany, the government is, and
> >always has been, involved. Think of the loop-hole if all you had to
> >do was set up an office in Germany to avoid U.S. jurisdiction over
> >persons and things in the U.S. This is such an obvious response, I
> >fear I'm missing your point though.
>
> 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.
Second, their work is still "theirs" unless and until they assign the
copyright to, for example, Debian -- which I understand is not done.
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. 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. 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.
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.
If you would like to take this anarchy discussion off the list, I'll
be happy to oblige.
> 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.
Actually, if you made a package tonight, it wouldn't matter because
the corporation would shield you from liability. Why is the concept
of limited liability hard for you to understand? The only way to get
general limited liability is to ask for it, and you ask for it by
forming the right type of entity.
> >That's the way it works, and that's the way it should work. A
> >group of people cannot avoid liability by refusing to incorporate,
> >and as soon as the group does incorporate, the law kicks in and
> >makes certain requirements of the corporation, e.g., that it not
> >be undercapitalized, for the benefit of third parties who deal
> >with the entity.
>
> Phooey. Do all the developers hold there own copyright? Huh? Do
> they? Then they are each indivigually liable no matter what. The
> corp just now officially puts them all in the same basket.
Copyright law has absolutely nothing to do with liability (aka torts,
contracts, property law, and even criminal law; but, for crying out
loud, not copyright law). Having or not having a copyright has no
bearing whatsoever on the scope of liability (unless, of course,
you're suing because of copyright infringement which is not what
we're talking about). I have no Earthly clue how these two topics
have become confused in your head. Is there some sort of treaty of
which I'm not aware that says, if you keep (or don't keep) your
software copyright, you are free and clear of personal liability for
the torts you commit, like beating someone senseless or causing an
automobile accident? The proposition is silly.
And, to answer your question, yes, (unless I'm mistaken) all the
developers hold their own copyrights unless they have specifically
said otherwise. In short, you are no longer under an onus to
specifically reserve your copyright. Like I said though, it is
irrelevant to what we're talking about.
Paul Serice
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: