Re: An attempt to be constructive

At 12:44 -0700 2000.09.12, Dave Storrs wrote:
>Um, with all due respect, Chris, I'm having a lot of trouble following
>your reasoning.  I currently work for a company that is in serious trouble
>and may well go under; one of the contributing factors to that situation
>may well have been that our senior management writes their own contracts
>without (as far as we lower-level people can tell) consulting a
>laywer...which means that they signed a contract with a distributor but
>the distributor had no obligation whatsoever to market our product.

It is odd to me that you are at least the fourth person to believe that I
said that I do not wish to consult a lawyer, when I actually stated that a
lawyer probably should be consulted.  Maybe Bradley's post explaining what
I believe I clearly stated will help.


>Yes, certainly, we need to figure out what we want the License to say, but
>we need to have someone with legal expertise contribute to the debate on
>what it should say, and to actually write the language.

There is no need for a lawyer to compose the actual language.  We are
probably better off if a writer does.  Lawyers are not well-versed, in
general, in writing clearly.  I envision the best license as being one that
is written by a very good writer who has a vested interest in the issue at
hand (or written by a group of us, and edited by such a person mentioned),
that is approved of by competent lawyers.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      [email protected]    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    [email protected]     http://osdn.com/