[Chicago] Capistrano alternatives

[Ted Pollari]

On Jan 5, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Ian Bicking wrote:

> I've gotten weird pushback from lawyers that statements of my intent  
> aren't meaningful compared the license itself (despite the LGPL and  
> GPL often being unclear anyway).  I read this as bullshit, and it's  
> made me wary of lawyers as good predictors of legal issues.  (If you  
> ask me about my licensing, and I say I'm not going to sue you, what  
> more do you need?)


It makes complete sense -- because no matter what you *say* you still  
have the right to bring a lawsuit unless the license is amended/ 
changed and therefore it's a liability.  In the eyes of the law, the  
license *is* the statement of intent to give up the right to bring  
suit.  Anything else isn't legally binding (heck, even licenses aren't  
always binding until they're tested.)

So, to your question, if you say you're not going to sue me, what more  
do I need?  Well, I, personally, trust you Ian, probably even enough  
to stake a good part of my livelihood on that trust, but in general,  
that's not a sustainable position, at least not when faced with the  
threat of lawsuits.  It's all about risks and rewards vs. costs.

In the end, lawyers are like guns -- they're weapons often wielded by  
people who fail to think before they cause damage.  For the most part,  
lawyers don't cause issues on their own -- they're always working for  
someone who wants something.

Don't go into a room of friends waving a gun around and expect them to  
remain friends -- but if you don't feel safe, by all means, you may  
well need one.  Same thing goes with lawyers and threats of lawsuits.

my take at least...

-tcp