Policy-Discussion

[Ian G <iang AT cacert.org>]

On 8/11/11 09:50 AM, Bruce Alspaugh wrote:
> Based on Red Hat's last comment, it sounds like they won't listen to 
> us unless CACert has an official lawyer who can talk to their lawyer:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474549#c59

Yes, that message came through loud and clear.  It's unclear whether 
this is their official procedure, or they are just gatekeeping, pushing 
us over to a mailbox that will never answer.

> I thought it might be worth a try to find out whether the Software 
> Freedom Law Center (SFLC) might be able to offer CACert some pro-bono 
> legal assistance to deal with this and other issues.
> http://www.softwarefreedom.org/
> I am supposed to talk to one of their lawyers on Nov. 14.  Who should 
> I be putting them in contact with?  Are there particular issues I 
> should bring up?

It's a good idea, you can certainly ask whether they'd be interested.

But as a question, it can only really be answered by the board.  Because 
lawyer-to-lawyer is such a formal step, we can't really say things like 
"iang sort it out" or "bruce have a go!" which is what we'd normally 
say.  It's a community issue for us, its a corporate lawyering issue for 
them.

I sent a message to board to see if they were interested in picking up 
the thread, but no response as yet.  I'll add this one.

(Although I'm on the board, I can't push it further than notification.)

iang