Lots of questions since I last posted... lost of people getting testy. Can't do much about that, but I will try to explain a few things based on what I know from law school. First up, there is a pretty well established definition for what constitutes "legal advice." It can be phrased as: "particular courses of action in response to particular facts." The particularity is key.
Here a good pair of examples -- Not Legal Advice: Q: Is it true that a judge can reduce your traffic ticket. A: Yes. Legal Advice: Q: I got a traffic ticket for going 20 miles over the speed limit, what should I do? A: Go to the judge and argue for a decrease in the fine. The critical difference is the particularity of fact, both by the questioner and the answerer. Which is why debian-legal, for the most part, is in the clear (at least in the US, more on that in a moment). Folks show up and ask general questions about legal implication and folks respond saying here are various things to consider. An interesting grey area is with regards to the DFSG, which is a legal document, of sorts, but debian (as an organization) can provide advice to others on how to interpret it. Just as a car salesman can explain the terms of a car sale document, so can debian lay-persons explain the terms of their own governing docs. Where Francesco went wrong, in my opinion, is giving a definite answer to a definite question about a third-party license. Now, as for me, I will admit that I don't know much about non-US law, although I would be very surprised to hear that law is more liberal on this point in the EU than the US, since these "no practice without a license" laws are consumer protection in nature, and as a general rule, the EU is more strict than the US on such things. Second, I am not technically a lawyer, while I have completed all of the necessary education, testing, and certification steps to become so, I have not yet taken the final oath and paid my membership fees. Which means I too cannot provide legal advice, regardless of jurisdiction. The reason I feel the above is not legal advice is because it is non-specific in nature. I am doing my best to describe the law and point out what I believe was an improper action. The above does not apply to a specific set of facts beyond those that have already transpired to which I've said, in my opinion, were improper. On the topic of disclaimers, while I always enjoy a fun word game, your attempt to point out circular reason fails. Disclaimers do not work for the purposes of shielding anyone from the prohibition on providing legal advice, it either is, or is not, legal advice. However, a disclaimer is a nice courtesy, and perhaps a wise idea, in that it can avoid the situation where the advisee acts on that legal advice, ends up in a bind, and comes after the advisor. It's like committing a common tort but doing it in a way that there is no harm... yes, there is possible suit, but there will be no finding of damages. It's just good sense. On the topic of global jurisdiction, I wonder where the courts have fallen down on this topic? I honestly don't know. It was easy, before the internet, to say only CA lawyers could give advice to CA residents and businesses... but with the internet, it's tricky. I imagine there is case law on this out there, since there is case law on things like minimal contacts established by a globably accessible website. Something to look into. On Sunday 01 July 2007 02:36:53 am Mike Bird wrote: > Personally, IANAL. I don't give legal advice. I argue law all I want. The above quote struck me. My understanding is you can argue the law all you want. However, when giving specific advice to specific questions, you move from the arguing phase to the legal advice phase--regardless of whether you are a lawyer. -Sean -- Sean Kellogg e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://blog.probonogeek.org/ So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
