Lawyers will also usually advice the safer option. Even if your actions are legal, if its boarderline enough you have to defend your actions in court, its expensive and risky.
Lawyers will be honest or dishonest, just depending on what’s best for the person who is paying them. Their jobs are dependent on getting good outcomes for their clients, so they can most definitely be trusted if you are the one paying them.
Lawyer slander is so fucking stupid. Would you not want a lawyer on your side if it was your ass on the line? A lawyer’s job isn’t to judge wrong or right. It’s to convince a judge or jury of one’s innocence. A lawyer has to defend the morally fucked the same as they do the innocent. You can’t have one without the other.
I know this isn’t a criminal proceeding or anything of the sort but I sense that’s what the comment was referring to.
Compliance with sanctions from the US and EU IIRC
Sanctions apply on OS development?
I dont know ennough on the topic, does this ecen check out?
Yes they do. See the long-standing debate over the ban to export crypto algorithms to Iran.
As they said in the article, they are just listening to their lawyers. I would assume those lawyers are correct.
Ah, lawyers, the people renowned for always being honest and doing the right thing
Lawyers tend to be honest to the people they’re being paid by.
Lawyers will also usually advice the safer option. Even if your actions are legal, if its boarderline enough you have to defend your actions in court, its expensive and risky.
Lawyers will be honest or dishonest, just depending on what’s best for the person who is paying them. Their jobs are dependent on getting good outcomes for their clients, so they can most definitely be trusted if you are the one paying them.
Lawyer slander is so fucking stupid. Would you not want a lawyer on your side if it was your ass on the line? A lawyer’s job isn’t to judge wrong or right. It’s to convince a judge or jury of one’s innocence. A lawyer has to defend the morally fucked the same as they do the innocent. You can’t have one without the other.
I know this isn’t a criminal proceeding or anything of the sort but I sense that’s what the comment was referring to.
That’s a generic fuck you, I don’t need to explain myself.
Which does make me question their reasoning even more tbh