At 20:04 -0700 2000.09.11, Russ Allbery wrote:
>Chris Nandor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> But my point is that I don't want a laywer actually writing the license.
>> I would rather he give his input and opinions, and then others do the
>> writing. I am far more interested in his opinion of the existing
>> license than his version of it.
>
>This makes no sense to me. Would you say this about the deed to your
>house?
If a deed to a house could be written as brielfy as a software license,
then I might. From what little I know about deeds, it's like asking me why
I would want to write a short editorial, but wouldn't want to write a
6-part, 200,000-word investigative report.
>One of the primary jobs of a lawyer is, given a specification from a
>client on what they want to say, drafting the legal language that
>accurately says that.
I am not sure what relevance that has. What someone decides his job is
puts no obligation on me to think that he should have that job.
I am not -- we are not -- capable of writing a deed to a house, that I can
tell (maybe we are, I don't know). We are perfectly capable of writing a
software license. When we are done, lawyerly review would be fine. But
why should we let someone without vested interest write something that
those who do have vested interest are perfectly capable of writing?
I mean, I wrote a license off the top of my head in a few seconds that you
thought would be mostly acceptable, but would suggest some changes to. So
you have already admitted that we are capable of writing a license. That's
what I am talking about. We write it, and then solicit opinions and
changes and suggestions.
--
Chris Nandor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://osdn.com/
