[License-discuss] The per se license constructor

[Bruce Perens]

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 7:59 AM Patrick Schleizer <adrelanos at riseup.net>
wrote:

> I've seen that no is being evidence requested about legal review being
> actually done vs just claiming legal review was done.
>

In general we get to talk with the lawyer, and a lot of us on the list know
most of the lawyers who are likely to get this sort of work. For example,
Heather Meeker chimed in about SSPL version 1. She happens to be my lawyer
too, and a great one.

But it's easy for the other attorneys here and even me to tell when someone
has a lawyer or not. I don't think there is actually any point in lying.
There are obvious language differences that an experienced person can spot.

Previously, I've seen on this mailing list statements like "Legal review:
> I’ve had a lawyer informally have a look, but no in-depth legal review has
> been conducted."
>

One reason that I feel really strong about this is that I was pro-bono
expert in the appeal of *Jacobsen v. Katzer. *Bob Jacobsen went through
some seriously bad times in court because Larry Wall drafted the Artistic
License Version Zero per-se. The lower court also created what would have
been an absolutely horrid precedent had it been allowed to stand: that the
license was tantamount to a dedication to the public domain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190316/7263735a/attachment.html>