This reminds of high school when we forged an application for candidacy for class president for some poor sap. He was quite surprised to hear his name announced as a 'possible' candidate, but had not yet sent in a copy of his speech to be reviewed. I feel guilty about now because I think the only reason we picked on him was because his middle name was 'Elmer'.
Dilbert's missing a great Wally opportunity.
- fill out the form half way, and submit it. Legal always takes forever to respond that it's not filled out right.
- Make some of the changes from legal's response, and re-submit.
- rinse and repeat again and again.
- When the next productivity meeting is held, blame legal for the complete lack of progress with a nice email trail to point to.
- Drink a nice hot cup of coffee, sit back, relax, and update Facebook.
Actually, the nice thing about open source licenses is the license reuse. There are a (relatively) small number of licenses, and legal can pre-approve some subset of them. As opposed to a unique, custom license for each product of each proprietary vendor. Then there is just the matter of not breaking the dependency tree of which licenses are compatible with licenses of products you are already using or might use. But that is a problem a software engineer should be able to handle.
I've often thought that proprietary vendors could benefit from standardizing on a small number of proprietary licenses. Borland had the right idea with their "no nonsense" license.
You expect the PHB to take any sort of responsibility for anything when he can get a peasant or even better a whole 'nother division to do it for him?
Dilbert's solution is tried and true. An illegible scrawl in the signature box or better yet on some random spot on the paperwork, and it goes into the file cabinet never to be seen again. Or scanned into a blur by the document preservation crew and lost in backup drive.