Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >(Think of it as writing a Last Will and Testament---you can do it on your
> > own in a pinch, but it's always better to write a draft and then have a
> > lawyer help you rewrite it so it's more legally sound, because it is more
> > likely to DWYM when it goes out in the world.)
> That is what bothers me. When I did exactly that the "legally sound"
> version said something quite different to my draft - in particular gave
> the trustees rights to do things I never intended to give them. "But that
> is what is normally done" was the reply.
If we are working with a lawyer who is friendly to free software, I get the
feeling they will be straight with us. Plus, we aren't clueless, and since
they aren't writing the license, but rather verifying what we write, we
should be ok.
Basically, I see it as working as:
* We write stuff
* Lawyers say: "Did you know this clause means foo? Did you know this
clause has implication BAR?"
* We say, "No, we'll rewrite"
And iterate again.
> >What Eben is now helping me with is *not* to write a new version of the
> >Artistic License. Rather, I am working from the assumption that the
> >*current* AL *is* what we want, and we just need to make it legally sound.
> Fine - I for one would be happy to read such a draft and see if it
> "says the same" as far as my care-abouts are concerned.
Check out the second RFC I put out yesterday.
Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn