On 2021-02-21 10:20:13 Slávek Banko via tde-users wrote:
> Thank you all for the useful observations and your opinions and
> suggestions. It was all important. I will try to make a recap here.
>
> On Friday 19 of February 2021 16:08:54 Slávek Banko via tde-users wrote:
> > 1. Fiscal host ... e.g. OpenCollective.
>
> Mike, thank you for finding out, now I looked at the terms in more detail.
>
> When choosing an OpenCollective platform with the fiscal host Open
> Collective Europe, it really does not bring legal entity status, but only
> fund management - accepting donations and making payments according to the
> instructions of team leaders (collective).
>
> If we remained unincorporated, as we are now, we would gain a way to manage
> our fund - accept donations, pay expenses - nothing more. For ownership of
> things like domain names, trademarks, we continue to have to deal with
> this on a personal level with team members.
>
> If we conclude that we should incorporate, then this choice alone is not a
> sufficient solution. There would be a possibility of a combination - to
> create your own legal entity and enter into an agreement between Open
> Collective Europe and our entity. The question is whether using the Open
> Collective platform would provide an advantage at the cost of fees.
>
> > 2a. A company that focuses on providing legal status - sfconservancy
>
> The SF Conservancy seems to be very credible and could probably be a good
> support for us. The patronage of a well-known company, which is also a
> representative of major open source projects, could be discouraging for
> possible patent trolls and similar harmful creatures. Here, however, it
> would depend on whether SF Conservancy would be interested in us becoming
> a member project. The disadvantage seems to be that it is bound by US law.
> We have to decide whether, despite this fact, we want to try this way or
> not?
>
> > 2a. A company that focuses on providing legal status - dyne
>
> There is a clear consensus here - dyne.org seems very untrustworthy - we
> don't want to go that way.
>
> > 2c. A company that focuses on providing legal status - OpenCollective
>
> I'm adding OpenCollective here as variant 2c, because when choosing
> OpenCollective with the fiscal host Open Source Collective, it provides
> the services of a legal entity similar to SF Conservancy, not just fund
> management. Although there is good transparency in fund management, SF
> Conservancy seems more specialized and can offer a stronger background.
> However, there is the same disadvantage - it is bound by US law.
> Therefore, the same question as for 2a: Do we want to be bound by US law?
>
> > 3. Our own non-profit organization.
>
> I was worried that this could be an obstacle to creating a legal entity in
> the Czech Republic - it will be necessary to use Czech when dealing with
> the authorities. On the other hand, if we wanted to create a non-profit
> organization in the EU, we would still have to choose a specific country,
> so why not CZ, because when choosing another country, it will be a another
> language that will be needed.
>
> I researched the possibilities here. According to the current law, we have
> an option called "spolek" or "zapsaný spolek" ("registered association" -
> allowed abbreviation "z.s."). It is an association of three or more
> persons, which has its own statutes and acts as a legal entity. The
> members of the association are not liable for its debts.
>
> I also researched what the account management options are here. The local
> bank Fio.cz provides a Transparent Account. Such an account allows free
> viewing of transactions on the account. Account management and operations
> fees are minimal - basically the only fee is for payment outside the EU.
>
>
>
>
> Again, I ask for your observations and comments.
> Currently the basic questions I see:
>
> 1) Do we want to try to address the SF Conservancy, even if it means being
> bound by US law?
>
> 2) If so, but SF Conservancy rejects us, do we want to become a member of
> the Open Source Collective?
>
> 3) If we want to avoid US law, do we want to continue as unregistered -
> only as a virtual team with Open Collective Europe?
>
> 4) Or we don't want any of the above - do we want our own legal entity?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Cheers
Since, as you say, "...has its own statutes and acts as a legal entity", I think that 4)
is probably the best way to go. It sounds to me like the overheads (non-coding activity)
will be minimized with this case.
Writing those statutes might be the hardest part. :-)
Leslie
--
openSUSE Leap 15.2 x86_64
Qt: 3.5.0
TDE: R14.0.9
tde-config: 1.0
____________________________________________________
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
