[License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)

[Nigel T]

My defense is Larry wrote that part as it’s in the original license. :)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Oct 3, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Smith, McCoy <mccoy.smith at intel.com> wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-review [mailto:license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org] On Behalf Of Nigel T
> Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2018 3:44 PM
> To: Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb at elstel.org>
> Cc: License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: Convertible Free Software License, Version 1.1 (C-FSL v1.1)
> 
>>> I believe that “shall” in legal terms means “has a duty to”.  Perhaps it should be “must”.  
> 
> For legal draftspersons of a certain particularity, "shall" is a term which has become ubiquitous in legal drafting, but that is also hopelessly vague or subject to dual contradictory meaning.  The editor of Black's Legal Dictionary is on a personal quest to scrub it from the legal lexicon:  http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/shall_we_abandon_shall/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org