Re: How does SPI differ from SFC?

"Michael Renzmann" <mrenzmann(at)madwifi(dot)org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure, but SFC's pumping of itself as a liability protection
> > makes it sound like they have taken out insurance, although I can't
> > find any details of it. On the other hand, they might just be
> > describing the nature of a corporation.
>
> Can you please explain the meaning of the above two sentences a bit more?

SFC's web site says http://conservancy.softwarefreedom.org/

"These benefits include, most notably, protection from personal
liability for project developers."

This sounds to me like SFC might have bought the indemnity insurance
that has been suggested to SPI a few times, but dismissed as too
expensive or not desirable. Alternatively, SFC might just be
describing the protection of having a corporation responsible, which
SPI also has.

Josip Rodin <joy(at)entuzijast(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:39:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > (although now I notice that SPI's web site copyright terms appear to
> > be missing, at least since the last redesign... oops?).
>
> To be fair, the old web site didn't mention a license either, AFAICT.

I meant that I hadn't checked the old web site, not that it vanished.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/