incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@4quarters.com>
Subject Re: Undermining the Incubator
Date Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:29:26 GMT

On Jan 13, 2004, at 7:33 PM, Noel J. Bergman wrote:

> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> All legal matters are for the Board and the Foundation's attorneys to
> address.
>
> Regarding audits ...
>
> There is a presumption of innocence in our legal system.  I do not 
> believe
> that due diligence requires an a priori presumption of fraud, and a
> investigation to "prove" its absence.  Nor do I believe that due 
> diligence
> requires all code to be subjected to 
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/comparator/
> across all published codebases, although that would be an interesting
> project.
>
> As I understand it, if we receive a signed CLA or Software Grant, 
> there is a
> presumption that they had the right to provide it.

Yes, because it would be fraud otherwise on the part of the signer or 
grantor.  Of course, IANAL, but I think that there is no other rational 
way to operate.  When you get that stolen car that's been reasonably 
represented as legit, you don't do extensive searches for indications 
of VIN alteration, do you?  No?  You do the basic due diligence (All 
papers appear to be in order?) and move on.

If the car was stolen and the police find it, you may be out of the 
money given to the fraudster, but you aren't going to jail for grand 
theft.

In this case, we'd be out of the codebase and the time spent around it, 
but we probably aren't liable if we had no inkling there was a problem 
and documented good faith efforts.

geir


-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                   203-247-1713(m)
geir@4quarters.com


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message