Re: Liability protection project - call for participants

Note forum-shifting, of which more discussion later in this mail.

Joshua D. Drake writes on board@ ("Re: SPI support for [some project]"):
> You are correct, and I find it a very, very sad prospect that we are
> only able to [act as trustees for funds] this when our charter
> clearly states we should be doing so much more.

I think you've misunderstood the function of the charter. The charter
for a legally constituted organisation like SPI is not its manifesto.
Everything that the founders and subsequent members of the
organisation think it might reasonably want to do has to be listed in
the legal charter, because if an organisation acts outside its charter
it and its board, officers, etc., are very legally exposed. Therefore
charters are necessarily broad, vague and often formulaic.

SPI's charter lists all of the things that SPI is permitted to do.
That doesn't mean that all of those things are primary objectives for
SPI or that we intend to do all of them any time soon.

Perhaps SPI ought to have a manifesto but at the moment it doesn't.

Now for a procedural note about my forum-shift:

This discussion has drifted away from the original topic, which was a
negotiation with a potential associated project. That negotiation
should reasonably remain confidential but the followup discussion
which Joshua and I are now starting does not need to be, so it ought
to be on -general. I trust that Joshua will not object.

Note also that I have been careful to remove information which might
leak the identity of the project: I have deleted the References: line,
the identity of the other recipients of Joshua's mail, the name of the
project from the quoted Subject line and in my own mail's Subject,
etc.

Anyone else who widens the scope of a discussion in similar
circumstances should take similar precautions, and carefully read and
re-read their message to avoid accidental leaks.

I'd also like to point out that SPI board members ought not to confirm
or deny any rumours that some particular project is in confidential
discussions with the board. Otherwise a refusal to deny could be
taken as confirmation. At any one time there are sometimes several
such discussions and sometimes none.

Note also that the decision whether to publish the fact of this
negotiation is for the project in question to take. They approached
board@, and we have not yet discussed the question of confidentiality
or otherwise with them.

Ian.

Ian Jackson wrote:
> Note forum-shifting, of which more discussion later in this mail.
>
> Joshua D. Drake writes on board@ ("Re: SPI support for [some project]"):
>> You are correct, and I find it a very, very sad prospect that we are
>> only able to [act as trustees for funds] this when our charter
>> clearly states we should be doing so much more.
>
> I think you've misunderstood the function of the charter. The charter
> for a legally constituted organisation like SPI is not its manifesto.
> Everything that the founders and subsequent members of the
> organisation think it might reasonably want to do has to be listed in
> the legal charter, because if an organisation acts outside its charter
> it and its board, officers, etc., are very legally exposed. Therefore
> charters are necessarily broad, vague and often formulaic.
>
> SPI's charter lists all of the things that SPI is permitted to do.
> That doesn't mean that all of those things are primary objectives for
> SPI or that we intend to do all of them any time soon.
>
> Perhaps SPI ought to have a manifesto but at the moment it doesn't.

Except that our "charter" isn't that vague. It is pretty explicit and in
fact defines "purpose". Purpose is:

1. the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc.
2. an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal.
3. determination; resoluteness.
4. the subject in hand; the point at issue.
5. practical result, effect, or advantage: to act to good purpose.

Now, perhaps I am being too pedantic but honestly... did the founders of
SPI intend that we were only to be a glorified PayPal? Does the board
consider that the case now?

* To create, form and establish an organization to formulate and
provide software systems for use by the general public without charge;
* to teach and train individuals regarding the use and application
of such systems;
* to hold classes, seminars and workshops concerning the proper use
and application of computers and computer systems;
* to endeavor to monitor and improve the quality of currently
existing publicly available software;
* to support, educate and promote the creation and development of
software available to the general public;
* to provide information and education regarding the proper use of
the Internet;
* to organize, hold and conduct meetings, discussions, and forums
on contemporary issues concerning the use of computers and computer
software;
* to foster, promote and increase access to software systems
available to the general public;
* to solicit, collect and otherwise raise money and to expend such
funds in furtherance of the goals and activities of the corporation;
* to aid, assist, cooperate, co-sponsor and otherwise engage in
concerted action with private, educational and governmental
organizations and associations on all issues and matters concerning the
use of computers and computer software;
and generally
* to endeavor to promote, foster and advance interest in computers
and computer software by all available means and methods.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Now, perhaps I am being too pedantic but honestly... did the founders
> of SPI intend that we were only to be a glorified PayPal?
The founders are myself and Tim Sailer. Our specific goal at the time
was to protect Debian developers from personal liability by giving them
a corporate shield. This purpose was not achieved, but IMO is more
important today than it was in 1998. Ownership of a few Debian
properties was also a goal.

Being PayPal for Open Source projects in general came later.

Bruce

Bruce,

> The founders are myself and Tim Sailer. Our specific goal at the time
> was to protect Debian developers from personal liability by giving them
> a corporate shield. This purpose was not achieved, but IMO is more
> important today than it was in 1998.

Well, Debian certainly has the funds to insure the developers, provided that
they could find an insurance provider. Just a suggestion.

--
Josh Berkus
Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
www.spi-inc.org

I researched copyright/patent liability insurance for a commercial
customer a while back. It can be had for 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the
insured amount per year. If you want $1 Million coverage you will be
paying $15,000 to $25,000 per year.

But the member is not the insured party. The corporation is. I don't
think it works for the corporation to indemnify a member the way this
insurance might have helped a company indemnify a customer. This brings
us back to the same point. If we can establish rules by which the
developer is working on behalf of the corporation, they can:

1. Not have their personal assets at stake. This can easily be over
USD$1M if you own a home, so it's a big deal. Younger folks will have
less at risk, but I'd assume that as a group we're aging.

2. Possibly take advantage of Volunteer Protection Acts.

However, SPI is not necessarily the best organization to implement this,
now, because it holds its own assets.

The biggest problem in making this happen is that the membership must to
some degree work at the direction of the corporation, and that direction
would include that the members not deliberately put the corporation at
risk by doing stupid stuff like knowledgable violations of someone
else's copyright, installing stuff that would get Debian sued into the
distribution like obscentity, etc.. The last time I tried, I had
difficulty selling this to the DDs.

I think the best structure in which to do this today would be a separate
purpose-built corporation that DDs (and other project developers) could
opt into. The folks who could not live with the rules would be able to
stay out.

Thanks

Bruce

Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
>
>> The founders are myself and Tim Sailer. Our specific goal at the time
>> was to protect Debian developers from personal liability by giving them
>> a corporate shield. This purpose was not achieved, but IMO is more
>> important today than it was in 1998.
>>
>
> Well, Debian certainly has the funds to insure the developers, provided that
> they could find an insurance provider. Just a suggestion.
>
>

Hi Bruce,

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:24:21AM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> I researched copyright/patent liability insurance for a commercial
> customer a while back. It can be had for 1.5 to 2.5 percent of the
> insured amount per year. If you want $1 Million coverage you will be
> paying $15,000 to $25,000 per year.
>
> But the member is not the insured party. The corporation is. I don't
> think it works for the corporation to indemnify a member the way this
> insurance might have helped a company indemnify a customer. This brings
> us back to the same point. If we can establish rules by which the
> developer is working on behalf of the corporation, they can:

Is it not possible to have the policy written to cover a defined other
group of people besides the corporation itself, such as those who are
official DDs (a very well-defined set)? Note I am not commenting right
now on whether I think this would be worthwhile for Debian or for any of
the other projects, but I don't see a priori why such a policy
(admittedly somewhat atypical) couldn't be arranged if desired by SPI or
a member project. Certainly Directors & Officers insurance is one kind
of insurance that is purchased by a company for specific individuals,
and I don't see what's unique about that other than a different risk
profile that makes it a reasonably common purchase.

- Jimmy Kaplowitz
jimmy(at)spi-inc(dot)org

Jimmy Kaplowitz wrote:
> Certainly Directors & Officers insurance is one kind
> of insurance that is purchased by a company for specific individuals,
> and I don't see what's unique about that other than a different risk
> profile that makes it a reasonably common purchase.
>
It costs a lot more to insure a number of people for their full net
worth than it costs to insure a corporation that doesn't own anything.
Insurance cost is at least somewhat proportional to the amount you are
insuring. Covering the DDs as a group gets into the tens of Millions
pretty quickly. Thus, shifting the burden of liability from the
individual to the corporation is the essential first step in protecting
that individual without breaking the bank.

As an aside, if you have not taken a look at available D&O policies,
there are in general a lot of caveats, exceptions, and loopholes to
protect the insurer.

Thanks

Bruce

On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:37PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> The founders are myself and Tim Sailer. Our specific goal at the time
> was to protect Debian developers from personal liability by giving them
> a corporate shield. This purpose was not achieved, but IMO is more
> important today than it was in 1998.

AFAICT, it's more futile. If someone really wants to go out to sue Debian
developers for doing what they do, the legal system in the US still allows
them, and no matter how much money we got in the meantime, someone with
money to waste on this purpose now likely has even more.

So, since there's nothing that can save us in that game, other than
popularizing common sense and the world becoming a better place,
let's just keep trying never to play it?

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Bruce Perens wrote:
> It costs a lot more to insure a number of people for their full net
> worth than it costs to insure a corporation that doesn't own anything.
> Insurance cost is at least somewhat proportional to the amount you are
> insuring. Covering the DDs as a group gets into the tens of Millions
> pretty quickly. Thus, shifting the burden of liability from the
> individual to the corporation is the essential first step in
> protecting that individual without breaking the bank.
>
OK folks - given the news from Microsoft today, it's time to do this.
Will SPI back it? Do I need a resolution? It will help me convince
Software Freedom Law Center to do the work if SPI backs it. It would be
a separate corporation from SPI for legal reasons - like we don't want
to put the Debian trademark in hock.

Thanks

Bruce

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:00:43PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> OK folks - given the news from Microsoft today, it's time to do this.

Oh my God, Microsoft said something and it made Slashdot.

:|

For those who don't care enough to find the fine article,
the link from there pointed to this URL:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_latest

I liked this quote best:

"The free world appears to be uncowed by Microsoft's claims."

"Uncowed"? Those darn cows are everywhere! :)

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 01:00:43PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
>
>> OK folks - given the news from Microsoft today, it's time to do this.
>>
>
> Oh my God, Microsoft said something and it made Slashdot.
>
> :|
>
> For those who don't care enough to find the fine article,
> the link from there pointed to this URL:
> http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_latest
>
> I liked this quote best:
>
> "The free world appears to be uncowed by Microsoft's claims."
>
> "Uncowed"? Those darn cows are everywhere! :)
>
>
All right, I'll take that as a "no".

Bruce

A long time ago we planned for SPI to protect Debian developers from
liability connected with their development of Free Software. That never
came to fruition. With the sword-rattling going on by various patent
holders, it's a goal even more worth carrying out today.

Some of us have homes, and other property that we would rather not place
at risk of any lawsuit connected with our Free Software activities. The
way to do that is to act as a volunteer on the behalf of a non-profit
corporation, with the corporation assuming your liability. It is
possible to insure you against those risks, but it's much more expensive
- potentially 1.5 to 2.5 percent of your net worth per year per member.
It's better to put the risk in the lap of an entity that doesn't own
anything. We can potentially do it at zero cost to the member that way.

There is a downside. If you work on behalf of such an entity, you would
have to agree to act at their direction, which means acting responsbily
on their behalf, by not doing stupid stuff that obviously increases the
corporation's risk of being sued. This doesn't really have to do with
practical software, but with what some consider freedom-of-speech issues
like obscentity or hate speech. For that reason, this would be strictly
opt-in. It would not be directly associated with SPI or Debian, because
we could never get all of the DDs to agree about this, and because SPI
owns property that we do not want to expose to liability. Copyrights of
software produced would be assigned to a non-profit like FSF or SPI*

I am asking for current free software authors in the United States who
would be interested in being protected from liability, and would join me
in a request to the Software Freedom Law Center to assist us by creating
such an entity. If you would like to do that, please reply to me at
bruce(at)perens(dot)com . Further discussion will be carried out separately
from SPI and Debian lists.

Thanks

Bruce

* There should also be limits on how much software a single non-profit
has in its "risk pool", this is a good question for SFLC.

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 01:51:37PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > The founders are myself and Tim Sailer. Our specific goal at the time
> > was to protect Debian developers from personal liability by giving them
> > a corporate shield. This purpose was not achieved, but IMO is more
> > important today than it was in 1998.
>
> AFAICT, it's more futile. If someone really wants to go out to sue
> Debian developers for doing what they do, the legal system in the US
> still allows them, and no matter how much money we got in the
> meantime, someone with money to waste on this purpose now likely has
> even more.
>
> So, since there's nothing that can save us in that game, other than
> popularizing common sense and the world becoming a better place,
> let's just keep trying never to play it?

Indeed; what is interesting too is the presence of such a corporate
shield with liability insurance means that if at the end of the day
the plantiff prevails the odds of actually getting paid is a near
certainty. That is certainly not the case when an individual can enter
bankruptcy or otherwise has little net worth at all.

Don Armstrong

--
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its
freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it
values more, it will lose that, too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham

http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 10:58:57PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> I liked this quote best:
> "The free world appears to be uncowed by Microsoft's claims."
> "Uncowed"? Those darn cows are everywhere! :)

Eeek!

aj(at)calamine:~$ apt-get moo
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...

Cheers,
a "not uncowed yet!" j

On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:51:40PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> A long time ago we planned for SPI to protect Debian developers from
> liability connected with their development of Free Software. [...]

(By and large, Bruce is speaking for himself here, and possibly some
of the other founders of SPI; I don't think this has been particularly
widely considered by Debian developers at large)

> Some of us have homes, and other property that we would rather not place
> at risk of any lawsuit connected with our Free Software activities. The
> way to do that is to act as a volunteer on the behalf of a non-profit
> corporation, with the corporation assuming your liability. [...]

> There is a downside. If you work on behalf of such an entity, you would
> have to agree to act at their direction, which means acting responsbily
> on their behalf, by not doing stupid stuff that obviously increases the
> corporation's risk of being sued. This doesn't really have to do with
> practical software, but with what some consider freedom-of-speech issues
> like obscentity or hate speech. For that reason, this would be strictly
> opt-in. It would not be directly associated with SPI or Debian, because
> we could never get all of the DDs to agree about this, and because SPI
> owns property that we do not want to expose to liability. Copyrights of
> software produced would be assigned to a non-profit like FSF or SPI*

Note that in the past Debian developers have had concerns with "acting
at the direction" of others -- such as being told that software like
"bitchx", "satan", "mencal" or "hot-babe" aren't appropriate to package
as part of Debian for various reasons; or having board members (such as
SPI's or the FSF's) dictating development decisions to people working
on the code, or changing licenses on them or otherwise becoming more
"involved" than you might have expected.

That said, giving up a little autonomy in exchange for potentially a
lot of financial security is an entirely sensible tradeoff to consider,
and it makes a lot of sense to do that before people start getting
sued individually.

It might be possible to do something like have SPI get copyright
assignment for works in return for providing the authors with a vote (or
a voice) on how they handle that copyright in future, which might ease
the concerns about handing over control and could even be argued to be a
"work for hire" arrangement making it a bit easier to deal with legally.

> I am asking for current free software authors in the United States who
> would be interested in being protected from liability, and would join me
> in a request to the Software Freedom Law Center to assist us by creating
> such an entity. If you would like to do that, please reply to me at
> bruce(at)perens(dot)com . Further discussion will be carried out separately
> from SPI and Debian lists.

I think it would be reasonable for SPI to recommend its members seriously
consider such an arrangement (presuming it's possible, pending legal
advice, etc), and I'd hope such discussion would take place on SPI and
Debian lists...

Cheers,
aj

Hi,

On Tue, 15.05.2007 at 18:11:03 +1000, Anthony Towns <aj(at)azure(dot)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 03:51:40PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
> > Some of us have homes, and other property that we would rather not place
> > at risk of any lawsuit connected with our Free Software activities. The
> > way to do that is to act as a volunteer on the behalf of a non-profit
> > corporation, with the corporation assuming your liability. [...]

> > owns property that we do not want to expose to liability. Copyrights of
> > software produced would be assigned to a non-profit like FSF or SPI*

> That said, giving up a little autonomy in exchange for potentially a
> lot of financial security is an entirely sensible tradeoff to consider,
> and it makes a lot of sense to do that before people start getting
> sued individually.
>
> It might be possible to do something like have SPI get copyright
> assignment for works in return for providing the authors with a vote (or
> a voice) on how they handle that copyright in future, which might ease
> the concerns about handing over control and could even be argued to be a
> "work for hire" arrangement making it a bit easier to deal with legally.

I'm unconvinced that such copyright assignments can be done in a way
that avoids creating an asset - in the form of the software - that the
bad boys can go after. Eg. IFF they (hypthetically) were to
successfully sue the FSF, then we'd lose a large chunk of important
stuff because the copyrights held by the FSF will probably be
confiscated in order to "pay" the damages. I'm also unsure that there
are no ways to extend such a liability if the contracts come to be
"work for hire" style or similar. Example: DDs work for "company A" which
directs them to do something, and "company B" assumes all the benefits
(the copyrights), specified that way in the contract between some DD
and company A. I'm not sure that such a contract would prevent company
B from being disowned in such a case.

Best,
--Toni++

Does all this project involve only proper Debian Developers, or also people
who are maintaining Debian packages without being full Debian Developers?

Also, we're only talking about Developers who live in the USA, or that have
that nationality, aren't we?

Greetings,
Miry

Toni Mueller <toni(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> [...] Eg. IFF they (hypthetically) were to
> successfully sue the FSF, then we'd lose a large chunk of important
> stuff because the copyrights held by the FSF will probably be
> confiscated in order to "pay" the damages. [...]

Even if that is the case (what is the precedent?), then we would not
lose much because as far as I know, FSF grants a perpetual
all-permissions license back to the original author of the copyright-
assigned work. We'd only lose the ability to defend copyright
infringment on the stuff, but if the FSF has been successfully sued,
then we've arguably lost a big chunk of that anyway. Other than maybe
making some GPL code effectively BSD-like for whoever sued FSF, the
winner would gain nothing except the ability to police some of our
code for us.

FSF has its faults, but this aspect looks pretty clever to me.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

All,

I'd just like to point out that nobody who has yet discussed this project is
an attorney or insurance analyst. As such, opinions on the viability for a
liability shield for Debian ... or any other FOSS project ... are worth about
as much as the opinion of a marketing MBA on agile code design. Until we
hear from an expert, it's blowing smoke.

So, the first step in any discussion of a liability shield would be to get an
opinion from experts, probably more than one. If we were talking about
PostgreSQL, for example, I'd want opinions from at least two attorneys and an
insurance analyst. People can't decide whether to participate until they
know how much it will cost and what protection it will *actually* provide.
But that's up to you guys.

After the DDs have a program you can endorse, then we can discuss the SPI vs.
SFLC vs. independant corp issue. Then if SPI is not involved (a mistake, I'd
think), the discussion moves off this list.

--
Josh Berkus
Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
www.spi-inc.org

>> "Uncowed"? Those darn cows are everywhere! :)
>>
>>
> All right, I'll take that as a "no".
>
> Bruce

Bruce, you are neglecting that by having insurance we have an asset. Not
in the official terms of course, but if there is money to be had we
become a target.

Secondly, we will never be able to provide protection for *any*
developer. Why? Because all the plaintiff has to do is show that the DD
acting at some point on their own.

How many DDs are going to actually adhere to only doing what we tell
them to?

Let's be realistic.

I applaud your heart, but the logistics don't make sense. If a DD wants
protection, they need to go out and either get a job that gives them
that protection or purchase insurance on their own.

Joshua D. Drake

>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-board mailing list
> Spi-board(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-board

On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 09:03:42AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: I'd just like
> opinions on the viability for a liability shield for Debian ... or any
> other FOSS project ... are worth about as much as the opinion of a
> marketing MBA on agile code design.

You're right about *opinions* as such, but we have a limited experience with
the matter so far, and the only conclusion one can derive from that is that
we're doing something right the way we are doing things now, because we're
not having these problems.

--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.

Josip,

> You're right about *opinions* as such, but we have a limited experience
> with the matter so far, and the only conclusion one can derive from that is
> that we're doing something right the way we are doing things now, because
> we're not having these problems.

Or just that you've been lucky so far. ;-)

Seriously, though, I'm not adovcating that Debian do a liability shield.
You'll notice that I'm not proposing one for PostgreSQL. I'm simply stating
that *if* the DDs want a liability shield, then the first step is to get some
experts who can actually tell you how much it will cost and what real
protection you'll get. A bunch of OS developers speculating on the ins and
outs of US liability law is pretty much a waste of time.

The thing I *am* advocating, and will continue to advocate as long as I'm
treasurer, is that Debian spend its accumulated funds on *something*.

--
Josh Berkus
Treasurer
Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
www.spi-inc.org

Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote: [...]
> SPI's charter lists all of the things that SPI is permitted to do.
> That doesn't mean that all of those things are primary objectives for
> SPI or that we intend to do all of them any time soon. [...]

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but I think that's confusing Purposes and
Powers. SPI's charter lists its Purposes, really its objectives
(maybe not primary, but still objectives). Its Powers are listed in
New York State laws, which aren't repeated in SPI's charter. This
might be a link to the relevant Article 2:
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=(at)SLNPC0A2+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=09576335+&TOKEN=49915119+&TARGET=VIEW

Please can we have a link on SPI's charter page to the NY NPC law?
That might be
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=(at)LLNPC+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=49915119+&TARGET=VIEW
but TOKEN in that link makes me think it might expire.

Anyway, let's have SPI start fulfilling its purpose more fully if it
has the opportunity and resources.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Those documents contain JavaScript links and are not useful as-is. Do
you have a parent document that contained those documents?

Thanks,
Dusty Wilson

On 5/18/07, MJ Ray <mjr(at)phonecoop(dot)coop> wrote:
> Ian Jackson <ijackson(at)chiark(dot)greenend(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote: [...]
> > SPI's charter lists all of the things that SPI is permitted to do.
> > That doesn't mean that all of those things are primary objectives for
> > SPI or that we intend to do all of them any time soon. [...]
>
> Sorry if I've misunderstood, but I think that's confusing Purposes and
> Powers. SPI's charter lists its Purposes, really its objectives
> (maybe not primary, but still objectives). Its Powers are listed in
> New York State laws, which aren't repeated in SPI's charter. This
> might be a link to the relevant Article 2:
> http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=(at)SLNPC0A2+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=09576335+&TOKEN=49915119+&TARGET=VIEW
>
> Please can we have a link on SPI's charter page to the NY NPC law?
> That might be
> http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=(at)LLNPC+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=49915119+&TARGET=VIEW
> but TOKEN in that link makes me think it might expire.
>
> Anyway, let's have SPI start fulfilling its purpose more fully if it
> has the opportunity and resources.
>
> Regards,
> --
> MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
> Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
> Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
> Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
> _______________________________________________
> Spi-general mailing list
> Spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> http://lists.spi-inc.org/listinfo/spi-general
>

"Dusty Wilson" <dusty(at)hey(dot)nu> wrote:
> Those documents contain JavaScript links and are not useful as-is. Do
> you have a parent document that contained those documents?

I sympathise. With all the disability discrimination rules, I'm
surprised and disappointed by NY state's approach. Sadly, I was
constructing the links by reading the source and trial and error, so I
don't have any useful links readily-available.

I don't know the copyright status of NY state laws? Would it be
possible and legal for someone with a suitable browser to dump a copy
onto www.spi-inc.org?

Regards,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/