At 6:21 -0400 2000.09.12, Ben Tilly wrote:
>I know some non-lawyers who could write a software license I
>would trust. But I would not want to rely on a license
>written by anyone who didn't not only know the above, but
>who could not cite chapter and verse what those issues are.
That's just silly. None of those issues were around when the BSD and MIT
licenses were penned. They are very simple licenses that most any
reasonable person could have written. None of them could cite chapter and
verse what the issues are that you are referring to, because those issues
were not around back then.
>If the lawyers are proposing documents that don't say what we
>want, we can tell them we don't want them. But when it comes
>to software licenses, the lawyers have a lot to say that it
>would be very stupid to ignore.
It would also be quite stupid to ignore the words of a post you are
responding to. No less than three times in the very post you are
responding to -- and even right there in the actual text you quoted -- I
said that input from lawyers would be fine, but I would not want them to
write the license. To say that I advocate "ignoring what lawyers have to
say" is a mark of either disingenousness or carelessness.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
