| 1 |
Two other points, lawyer jargon, and liability. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:37 -0600, RB wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> you may want to 'lawyer' that language out |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I prefer to keep things in layman's terms as much as possible. Lawyer |
| 8 |
language means more ambiguity, more room for interpretation. Additional |
| 9 |
length, etc. Which makes things so the common person has a hard time |
| 10 |
understanding what they are reading. Then even worse, you might need |
| 11 |
lawyer to review it, since it's in their language. Which takes them |
| 12 |
longer, and they likely add more to it, than removing things. Nasty |
| 13 |
spiral. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Anything to do with lawyers, including their language and jargon I like |
| 16 |
to keep to a minimum. Or legal system is totally out of control as it |
| 17 |
is. Plus it's not a very effective system, wrt to bang vs buck. Justice |
| 18 |
on occasion :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> You don't want to be legally liable for someone else's failure to |
| 21 |
> maintain free infrastructure. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What liability? That is a theoretical one only. Who would sue us over |
| 24 |
that? What would they get from it? What would it cost them? Worse case |
| 25 |
maybe a riot among membership base. But that's pretty extreme. :) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
No potential fines or obligations wrt to NM or the Fed. If a company |
| 28 |
doesn't follow it's own by laws. There is little to no enforcement of |
| 29 |
that. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Keep in mind likely the ones on file now. Might not have been or are |
| 32 |
being followed now. And who is after us over it? No fines, no law suits. |
| 33 |
Most don't even care :) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
| 37 |
amd64/Java/Trustees |
| 38 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives