On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Richard Hansen <rhan...@bbn.com> wrote:
>
> Is it worthwhile to poke a lawyer about this as a precaution? (If so,
> who?) Or do we wait for a motivating event?
I can poke the lawyer that was originally involved. If people know
other lawyers, feel free to poke them too. Just ask them to be
realistic, not go into some kind of super-anal lawyer mode where they
go off on some "what if" thing.
Note that one issue is that this is kind of like a license change,
even if it's arguably just a clarification. I'd expect that a lawyer
who is so anal that they think this wording needs change would also
think that the DCO version number needs change and then spend half an
hour (and $500) talking about how this only affects new sign-offs and
how you'd want to make it very obvious how things have changed, Yadda
yadda.
IOW, my personal opinion is that if you get a lawyer that is _that_
interested in irrelevant details, you have much bigger problems than
this particular wording. Lawyers do tend to be particular about
wording, but in the end, they tend to also agree that intent matters.
At least the good ones who have a case. Once they start talking about
the "meaning of the word 'is'", you know they are just weaselwording
and don't actually have any real argument.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
