Ask a lawyer an opinion and they will give you one but is it the correct one.
Every lawyer has their own speciality area, and the good ones will even tell you in advance that your question is not within their area of expertise, but they all give you a legal "opinion" based on what you want to hear.
Sadly lawyers are like prostitutes, the oldest profession in the world, if you pay them enough money, or are a big enough client, they will find a way to achieve your goal.
They are in business too so it's not in their interests to tell you flat out that what you want to do is impossible in the law. Instead they will try to find a "possible" alternative method that is within the law to achieve the same goal.
When I first came across Open Source software it was a relatively "lawyer-free zone". That doesn't mean it was necessarily anarchic but that common sense prevailed.
Sadly in the last few years we have seen more and more lawyers entering the Open Source world until it has reached the point today where previously sensibly run projects don't do anything without running it through a lawyer first.
And to what gain?
Lawyers exist to help you out when you have a problem, they aren't there to create a problem that ever existed before.
Whilst lawyers are trained in absolutes, right or wrong, we don't live in a world of absolutes. (In fact if we did there would be little need for lawyers in the first place.) They don't like to see an "i" without it's dot or a "t" without it's cross.
As a result we are now seeing the influence of lawyers (trained or otherwise) influencing the direction and progress of many previously harmonious Open Source software projects.
Is this really necessary? I believe not.
[My whole family are lawyers, barristers, solicitors and judges so whilst that gives me no rights or special knowledge to comment on the law it does give me the ability to comment on lawyers]