[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: donations and paypal

Lucas Nussbaum writes ("Re: donations and paypal"):
> (Re-adding -project@ to Cc. I'm assuming that your reply to -www@ missed
> the fact that the mail was bounced to -project@.)


> Paypal is currently listed as an option for Debian France, but some
> people disagreed that we should mention it.

Ah, I see, yes, thanks.  That makes sense.

> > In fact that web page already says that
> > 
> >  | Debian is able to accept direct equipment donations
> > 
> > Does that mean that you as DPL are decreeing that Debian is accepting
> > ownership of hardware ?  That is contrary to the Debian constitution
> > and probably unlawful (depending on the jurisdiction).
> I'll let hardware-donations@d.o clarify, but AFAIK, we have had two
> kinds of hardware donations so far:
> - the ones where the donor did not ask for a legal document specifying
>   who is the recipient of the hardware; we did not bother to write one.

What legal entity _ought_ to own the hardware in this case ?  Possible
  * A TO in a similar or neighbouring jurisdiction
  * A single TO we use globally for this purpose
  * The individual Debian contributors who receive and handle the
    donation (or who manage it after receipt) - eg members of DSA
  * The donor (ie, the donation is legally a loan)

Implications we should consider:
  * Some TOs won't want to try to do inventory tracking
  * In many jurisdictions end-of-life computer hardware costs money
    to dispose of
  * Team membership changes, of course

An implication I would explicitly exclude from consideration for most
of this kind of hardware is the worry that a team member who was the
legal owner might abscond with (`steal') the hardware.  Our people are
trustworthy enough that that's a very small risk.

In reality we don't seem to have had much trouble with informal
arrangements.  I don't know what's been done about disposal of
end-of-life hardware.  But explicitly stating that informal donations
are to the individuals in the relevant team might be the easiest way
of avoiding the appearance that the DPL (or a team member) is acting
ultra vires.

> - the ones where a legal document was required. A TO was involved in
>   those cases.



Reply to: