Evidently, this boils down to whether the organization members fit within the local law definition of persona ficta, or in my case "jurisdictional persona" in direct translation.
According to the local law legal definition, a "jurisdictional persona" can be either:
countries, governments organizations and government corporations - under "public law"
for profit corporations and cooperatives, non profit foundations and associations - under "private law"
And I assume it is a safe bet that at least those will be valid throughout the world.
That alone doesn't indicate in the slightest that this applies to foundation members as well, it just establishes that the foundation itself has this legal status.
Disclaimer: the following is my personal interpretations of the law and its motivations, don't take that as factual legal advice.
Sadly, and as usual, law doesn't seem to say anything particular about it, and the only relevant legal information I found is this:
Representation
Article 10
(1) The non-profit legal entity shall express its will and shall
conduct legal activities through its bodies. It shall be represented
by its managing body.
(2) In the course of litigation between the non-profit legal entity
and its managing body, members of the managing body, respectively, the
legal entity may also be represented by one or several persons elected
by its general meeting.
(3) A non-profit legal entity may partake in the work of a body of
non-profit legal entity through its representative or a person
authorized thereby.
Given that a foundation's members are its only practical operatives, if they cannot legally act on behalf of the organization, then the organization cannot practically operate. So it doesn't make sense for the legal persona to not extend to the organization's operatives.
As for the effect of internationality:
I keep track on tech subjects, and in a related context, I am aware of:
- gdpr requirements
- requirements to keep user / personal / private / financial data with the user's local jurisdiction
- requirements to audit critical algorithms
- requirements to use specific algorithms within a jurisdiction
- instances of epic failure to comply with licensing requirements from industrial giants
I however cannot recall an instance where a tech corporation was required to open source its internal software to distribute it across branches in different jurisdiction as it expanded or jurisdictions fluctuated on the subject.
Or an instance of a split company being required to do it to distribute internal code between the two sub-companies.
But that can just be my exposure to information, so feel free to contribute such known precedents.
For the time being, I don't find evidence to suggest that internationality on its own, be that on organizational or operative level, does in some way sever the legal persona representation.
Certain jurisdictions however seem to have an attitude toward foreign operatives, particularly in the field of political non-profits, and things like informational restrictions, but that's outside the scope of the question and there's not much to do about it neither anyway.
What's more, since member registration does feature contractual obligation, including the software purpose, usage, terms and conditions, that adds additional weight to my conclusion, both in the capacity of contractors and on explicit terms that they will be receiving and using the software exclusively in the capacity of an operative of the organization implementing its goals.
It would seem that anyone under contractual obligation that includes acting on behalf of the organization or using organization software on the use terms as provided by the organization and accepted by operative can fit in the "internal user" category.
