Brendan Hickey: > Perhaps legal review is there in part to raise the bar and filter out > noise. In that case we're doing a disservice to submitters by providing > feedback so late in the process.
Indeed. Paying for legal review and then have the license rejected for another reason such as non-proliferation would be wasteful. I've seen that no is being evidence requested about legal review being actually done vs just claiming legal review was done. Previously, I've seen on this mailing list statements like "Legal review: I’ve had a lawyer informally have a look, but no in-depth legal review has been conducted.", and then it wasn't questioned. I am not suggesting that anyone lied about it, but the process shouldn't encourage to lie about legal review to pass that test while not asking for evidence for those that claim that legal review was done. Kind regards, Patrick _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
