No offense taken... I'm not working with their lawyers. The only thing they are talking to their lawyers about (well as it pertains to this and that I'm aware of) is whether or not the DAO as a decentralized organization can actually own the IP. We're trying to figure that out so that it's not just "oh hey we gave the DAO a license" and it's unenforceable. The only alternative I really have if it doesn't work like that would be the Foundation could own the license, but that doesn't really work for decentralization in my opinion. I'm not talking to their lawyers at all.

In the past myself and the guys on the Foundation Council (@mattclarke @bjangles and @dwaynecunningham) engaged legal council in regards to exploring different jurisdictions for setting up a foundation to act on the DAO's behalf if the DAO wants it to do so, which so far has only been done once to enact a proposal the DAO voted for (the Ramp network integration). That really doesn't relate to this exactly and I'd rather avoid any unnecessary centralization risk.

The DAO could hire a lawyer to review the contract once it's been made available, which will need to be done before we vote on anything, if that's what the DAO wants. There's also at least a few lawyers that are part of the community that could perhaps review it for us. If you guys want to look into having a lawyer represent us and provide an opinion, we can do that. Price will very drastically based on region and skillset. If we're looking for lawyers familiar with blockchain case law in the U.S. that is going to for sure get expensive.