<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><a name="_MailEndCompose">Chuck Swiger wrote:<o:p></o:p></a></p><p class=MsoPlainText style='margin-left:.5in'><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>> This is a pretty common mistake that developers tend to make when reviewing licenses. The law doesn't come in a fully denormalized grammar suitable for context-free parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>The law DOES come in a "fully denormalized grammar suitable for parsing," but of course no parsing is ever context-free. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>The problem is that many FOSS licenses DON'T use a standard grammar for such important things as "derivative work" or "attribution notices." Developers and their lawyers often write or review licenses without a standard grammar. And then they assume that licensees are mind-readers or "compilers" of that legal code. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>That's the world we live in. Please don't disparage developers alone for this problem.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'>/Larry<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><span style='mso-bookmark:_MailEndCompose'></span><p class=MsoPlainText>-----Original Message-----<br>From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-bounces@opensource.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger<br>Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:37 AM<br>To: license-discuss@opensource.org<br>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common permissive licenses</p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Zaniboni <<a href="mailto:massimo.zaniboni@asterisell.com"><span style='color:black;text-decoration:none'>massimo.zaniboni@asterisell.com</span></a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> I tried interpreting the terms of common permissive licenses following a "step by step" approach, like if they were instructions in programminng code, and I found with my big surprises that doing so they became non permissive licenses, or permissive licenses only using some "border-line" interpretation.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>This is a pretty common mistake that developers tend to make when reviewing licenses. The law doesn't come in a fully denormalized grammar suitable for context-free parsing; more importantly, judges aren't compilers.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><b><i>[<LER>] </i></b><snip> <o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>