How does SPI differ from SFC?

MJ Ray mjr at
Tue Oct 2 06:15:00 UTC 2007

"Michael Renzmann" <mrenzmann at> wrote:
> > I'm not sure, but SFC's pumping of itself as a liability protection
> > makes it sound like they have taken out insurance, although I can't
> > find any details of it.  On the other hand, they might just be
> > describing the nature of a corporation.
> Can you please explain the meaning of the above two sentences a bit more?

SFC's web site says

  "These benefits include, most notably, protection from personal
  liability for project developers."

This sounds to me like SFC might have bought the indemnity insurance
that has been suggested to SPI a few times, but dismissed as too
expensive or not desirable.  Alternatively, SFC might just be
describing the protection of having a corporation responsible, which
SPI also has.

Josip Rodin <joy at> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 06:39:36PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > (although now I notice that SPI's web site copyright terms appear to
> > be missing, at least since the last redesign... oops?).
> To be fair, the old web site didn't mention a license either, AFAICT.

I meant that I hadn't checked the old web site, not that it vanished.

Hope that explains,
MJ Ray tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke

More information about the Spi-general mailing list