Re: shielding from liability
> Show me the risk of a free venture. Show me the business orginazation, before
> Debian Inc. was formed. Show me the money! There was none before, and that was
> why what you just quoted would never have applied to the Debian maintainers.
> They had no collective assests!
Unfortunately, their private assets would be vulnerable, and this is the
issue.
If you own a home, then you may be worth going after. Otherwise you are
right, no one will bother to bother you.
> Now it's arguable they do. **NOW** it's an enterprise. NOW they have liabity
> extended to all of them.
What you are saying may seem logical to you, but it simply isn't how
things work. I recently began building some apartments, and the first
thing I did was form a type S corporation. Without it, if someone falls
in the excavation on my property and breaks their neck, they could sue me
for everything I own and win. The corporation doesn't remove the threat
of litigation, it just insulates me and my other assets. The corporation
(as the entity that owns the land) could easily be sued out of existance,
but it wouldn't be worth the prosecutors time. If for example you own
shares in MS, and MS gets sued for recycling Apple stuff with insufficient
smelting, Apple will not be able to knock on your door and want your
house. It is exactly the same with a type S corp., shares are issued and
shareholders are protected. This arrangement is perfectly legitimate and
is THE accepted way for small operators to protect themselves and their
families.
It is the same here also. Debian, Inc. can assume responsibility for the
software it organizes and distributes, and thereby protect the people who
contribute. To leave lots of money lying around in SPI or whatever it's
called would be foolish, but otherwise incorporating is a very wise idea.
--
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: