Hi all, in previous emails, I sent information about the status of the project, we discussed the migration of services and also about CLA vs. DCO. Now it is time to open another big topic: how to achieve a legal status of the project? Here are some questions and several possible solutions. Again, I apologize in advance for the long mail, but it's an important topic, so it deserves thorough information. 1. Fiscal host. This seems to be the simplest option, which can give us the way to manage our own funds - that is, to receive donations and pay expenses, while the fiscal host will keep accounts and provide legal status for the necessary legislation. We have previously discussed this possibility here. And we discussed in this context about OpenCollective, which can provide such a fiscal host. It is very good that OpenCollective performs financial management very transparently. I believe that this transparency can be motivating for contributors. It is also good that it is possible to choose between a fiscal host in the US and the EU. Of course, they deduct some percentage of the income we will earn, but in my opinion - "90% of something" is better than "100% of nothing". pros + simple + very transparent + choice between EU or US cons + only for funds management Note: I've also researched other platforms for maintaining donations, but OpenCollective seems to me best suited for software teams like ours. 2. A company that focuses on providing legal status for open source projects. There are companies that focus on providing legal status and services for open source projects. Such companies can provide not only a fiscal host, but also litigation assistance. They can also act as holders of things - trademarks, domain names, servers, etc. In addition to big names like the Linux Foundation, there are those where we are more likely to have a chance to get their interest - Software Freedom Conservancy, or Dyne.org. The SF Conservancy - https://sfconservancy.org/ - seems to be very well established. This should guarantee their reliability. Under their roof are many famous projects - GIT, QEMU, OpenWRT, Samba, Wine, Inkscape,... see https://sfconservancy.org/projects/current/ Although there is not as great transparency in fund management as on OpenCollective, SF Conservancy looks very good. You can find the necessary information on the website - about the services provided, the conditions, and how to apply for membership. Of course, they also deduct some percentage of the income we will earn, but it is clear that it brings useful value. pros + provides more than just a fiscal host + looks proven and trustworthy cons + less transparency of funds than OpenCollective + no choice of location - only US Dyne.org - https://dyne.org/ - is another company providing such services. It provides legal status for Devuan, for example. However, here I have a few reservations for which it would be necessary to find out the answer first. Their website is, in short, "modern", meaning it is almost impossible to find any useful information. It is not clear what team is behind this company and how trustworthy it is. Furthermore, I don't feel good about how they present covered software as theirs - as if they were developing it. Sure, they may be trademark owners, but the SF Conservancy approach, where projects mention them as members, makes a much better impression on me. If we'd like to think about Dyne.org, it's necessary to find out a lot of information here that I haven't been able to find out by researching the web. pros + provides more than just a fiscal host cons + uncertainty about credibility + less transparency in all respects + no choice of location - only EU 3. Our own non-profit organization. The option of founding our own organization may seem the most attractive, but at the same time it represents the greatest overhead burden for us. Because the current active team members want to focus on code maintenance and development, we would have to hire someone trusted to deal with the legislation of such an organization. We would probably also have to hire some lawyers to deal with the legislation to create the company. Because we do not have our own funds and there is no certainty what income we will be able to earn, there is no certainty how we will be able to pay such people. I see too many pitfalls here for this way. pros + we would have our own independent organization cons + too much overhead for the team leader + the need to find your own solution for the transparency of the funds + the risk of neglecting legislative duties + the need to hire our own accountant I ask for your opinions and comments on the above options. So far, I have not made any specific request from any of the listed entities - I have only done a research of available information. Thank you. -- Slávek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
____________________________________________________ tde-users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
