|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 02:10 PM EDT |
There is this difference: if the fear is that
FSF could do this, but then the FSF goes public
saying it won't do this, if later they change
their minds and do it, you have legal redress.
You relied on their promise, and now they can't
forget about the promise and expect the court
to reward them.
Your wife can't sue you for breaking your
promise. It's very, very different. Two
different types of laws.
And lawyers are paid to tell you every negative
possibility. This would be the first time I've
ever noted Mark paying much attention to danger,
frankly. He didn't care about mono, after all.
So I personally would like to hear a few more
details.
For example, if a lawyer says, well, if you do X,
the following might happen, in order of likelihood:
A, B, and C. I consider C very unlikely, but you
asked me to tell you all possible scenarios. In
fact C has never happened.
Now the CEO or whoever could want very much not to do
X, but he knows A and B are never going to happen or
he knows what to do to make sure they don't. The
lawyer's C possibility however can be used to
legitimatize a course he wants to take, so he could
tell the world, sorry, I can't do X. My lawyer says
it could lead to C.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
