My final words on Debian Inc.
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 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.
If I was covered by the corporation, which I assure you I would not be. You can't
just form a company. and say "Everyone that decided to do something on their own
under the name of the company is covered by us". That won't fly. You need to
specificly be an agent, employee, etc of the corpoation, and then if you hold full
rights in the final product (IE all copyrights) it's questionable if the corporation could
even shield you.
If you are the wiser just tell me "Dave you're insane. Here's the law, and some
cases that prove otherwise" and I'll be quiet.
But please don't disreguard what I've said based purely on your disagreement with
my poiltics. I feel I've raised some very valid points.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.psychosis.com/emc/ Elite MicroComputers 908-541-4214
http://www.psychosis.com/linux-router/ Linux Router Project
--
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: