Two other points, lawyer jargon, and liability.

On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 13:37 -0600, RB wrote:
>
>  you may want to 'lawyer' that language out

I prefer to keep things in layman's terms as much as possible. Lawyer
language means more ambiguity, more room for interpretation. Additional
length, etc. Which makes things so the common person has a hard time
understanding what they are reading. Then even worse, you might need
lawyer to review it, since it's in their language. Which takes them
longer, and they likely add more to it, than removing things. Nasty
spiral.

Anything to do with lawyers, including their language and jargon I like
to keep to a minimum. Or legal system is totally out of control as it
is. Plus it's not a very effective system, wrt to bang vs buck. Justice
on occasion :)

> You don't want to be legally liable for someone else's failure to
> maintain free infrastructure.

What liability? That is a theoretical one only. Who would sue us over
that? What would they get from it? What would it cost them? Worse case
maybe a riot among membership base. But that's pretty extreme. :)

No potential fines or obligations wrt to NM or the Fed. If a company
doesn't follow it's own by laws. There is little to no enforcement of
that.

Keep in mind likely the ones on file now. Might not have been or are
being followed now. And who is after us over it? No fines, no law suits.
Most don't even care :)

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
amd64/Java/Trustees
Gentoo Foundation