[OSGeo-Conf] 2017 Boston agreement & seed funding - IMPORTANT
darrell at garnix.org
Tue Mar 8 13:27:46 PST 2016
Other than the arbitration clause, which is common, but not required, those are pretty standard contract clauses in the US, and I have no problem with them.
Here's what I don't get: how can one reasonably guarantee that OSGeo's losses will be limited to 140k?
You can't. You can agree to pull the plug at a certain point if particular criteria are not met, in an attempt to limit losses. But let's say that somehow contracted liabilities came to $200k. That $60k has to come from somewhere and that *has* to be OSGeo. The LOC is not a legal entity, unless I'm mistaken, and has no assets.
But to ask for a specific cap with no criteria for deciding when to pull isn't going to accomplish anything.
Unless I'm really missing something.
> On Mar 8, 2016, at 12:04, Steven Feldman <shfeldman at gmail.com> wrote:
> The overall guarantee including seed funding is $140k - I do not recall this high a number being advised previously. Could you clarify.
> While I do not have any fundamental disagreement with the clauses that you have added at the end, they will need to be reviewed by someone more legally qualified than me which may incur both costs and delay.
>> On 8 Mar 2016, at 16:43, Michael Terner <mgt at appgeo.com> wrote:
>> Conference Dev Committee:
>> Thank you very much for your support of the motion to provide our team seed funding.
>> As promised earlier in the thread, attached is a "draft agreement" between OSGeo and the Boston Location Organizing Committee (BLOC), as well as with our PCO, Delaney Meeting & Event Management (DMEM). We are hopeful that this is on target and can be passed on to the Board in time for their meeting on Thursday. We are assuming that Conference Dev will bring this to the Board's attention.
>> Here's what you will find in the attached document (attached as .DOC, .ODT and .PDF):
>> Our re-work of the Bonn Template Agreement to include our specific requests for advance and guarantees; as well as our "percentage of profits returned to OSGeo" language that was also contained in our proposal (and is slightly different than 90%).
>> Some common-sense legal terms that were suggested by DMEM for things like Force Majeur, mutual indemnification and arbitration of disputes. We also affirm our commitment to purchase our own cancellation and liability insurance.
>> Attachment 1 which is structured as a PCO contract between OSGeo and DMEM on behalf of the BLOC, allowing DMEM to serve as our financial agent and as the entity that would sign the commitment with our venue (this was distributed earlier).
>> Given the nature of this arrangement we have three signature lines for OSGeo, the BLOC, and also DMEM, on behalf of the BLOC.
>> Please let us know if you have any question, or need anything further. And again, thanks in advance for carrying this forward to the Board.
>> MT & the BLOC
>> This e-mail message and any attachments may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not an intended recipient or otherwise authorized to receive this message, you should not use, copy, distribute, disclose or take any action based on the information contained in this e-mail or any attachments. If you have received this message and material in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you on behalf of Applied Geographics, Inc. (AppGeo).<OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT v3.odt><OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT v3.pdf><OSGeo + BostonLOC Agreement DRAFT v3.doc>_______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
> Conference_dev mailing list
> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conference_dev