| I've seen quite a few of these and whilst I love the idea, they usually have a ton of problems in them. As tptacek pointed out - there is no chance that this document would survive first contact with a sophisticated party and any qualified lawyer would likely rip this to shreds. Firstly there is no regard to the potential jurisdiction that the user chooses. If I were to put in England then that would mean there are different contractual implications to choosing Scotland. Ditto for states in the USA. A layperson won't know this, and a lawyer would need to review the provisions. There are also a ton of generalised terms in this document where things like 'intellectual property rights' aren't defined. These aren't generic terms and in the event of a dispute, language really matters. There is a reason why contracts are much longer when professionally written. This isn't to attack the idea, I'm hugely in favour of open access to legal documentation, but people need to realise that most legal work is bespoke - even if law firms do it on a 'churn' basis. This is a great effort to further open law but it's dangerous for people to rely on this. Source: I'm a software engineer and a qualified lawyer |
I imagine there is no shortage of demand for your cross-section of skills?
Do you utilize them both, or did you pivot from one to the other?