For Approval: Boost Software License - Version 1.0 - August 17th, 2003

[Chris Travers]

On 10/12/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:


> That's it, in a nutshell:  General information (and information about
> hypothetical cases, or views on the legal affairs of people whom you're
> not actually _advising_ on their problems) are fine.  Advising people on
> their specific legal problems is not.

> [Qoting Denial Wallace]
> > Approving a copyright license by its very definition involves
> > exercising legal judgement and discreation.
>
> In short:  Bull.

I would add to Rick's excellent points that when a legal issue goes
poorly, "qualified legal advice" is no surety, nor is malpractice
recourse easy to come by.  Thus while everyone needs to seek legal
advice and sometimes even representation where appropriate, these
matters should not be delegated to lawyers without us laymen doing our
part to grapple with, understand, debate, etc. legal questions.

In short while we *all* should seek to understand the issues as best
we can, we should *also* seek legal help where appropriate.  Approving
a license may require some judgement and discretion about legal
matters, but so does every other element of life, from as driving a
car to representing yourself in court (whether for a traffic ticket or
in a pro se case).

Licenses are not legal advice.  They are legal documents.  We are not
approving them as legally sound.  We are approving them as meeting a
certain standard as to what rights they purport to grant.

Hope that helps.
Chris Travers