4 ms·

Well, it also means that you as an open source dev don't have to constantly worry about someone challenging your copyrights or trademarks. And if they do, you d

• oneplane 5y ago
  On the other hand: it's not like a foundation has infinite resources either, and as an open source dev I don't really worry about copyright or trademark challenges (neither constantly nor intermittently). I'm not entirely sure how big of an issue this is anyway, your comment here is the first time I've actually had to do some thinking about it. Maybe this also depends on how litigious your current context of development/living/residence is. Looking at some individuals that apparently did get into some legal stuff: it has almost always turned out fine, and when needed the EFF and FSF have been helping plenty. If legal issues are really a thing, then a foundation isn't what we need, but just more money and people for the EFF.
• electroly 5y ago
  It was mentioned in one of the discussion threads that the foundation does not offer legal representation to its member projects. It only does so for its own director, officers, and employees. This is explicitly spelled out in Article V of the foundation's bylaws: https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/bylaws https://dotnetfoundation.org/about/bylaws My understanding is that the legal benefit of being a member project is essentially just that they run the CLA bot. If you actually get sued you're still on your own.