[License-discuss] The per se license constructor

Smith, McCoy mccoy.smith at intel.com
Fri Mar 15 20:40:08 UTC 2019

>>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Perens
>>Sent: Friday, March 15, 2019 1:31 PM
>>To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] The per se license constructor

>>I thus feel all such things should be rejected, although the reason is entirely outside of the OSD.

At the risk of arguing against my own interest (I’m a lawyer), requiring a submitter to retain a lawyer in license drafting and/or review is a potential barrier to entry (lawyers being expensive) and could come across as the process being taken over by lawyers (and possibly even a limited group of lawyers).  I’m not sure that helps with the perception issues other are expressing in threads the past few days

Drafting or review by a lawyer is no guarantee of quality, and I’d submit that drafting and review by a non-lawyer is not a guarantee of non-quality (pardon the triple negative).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190315/6a35b326/attachment.html>

More information about the License-discuss mailing list