[License-discuss] Request Discussion Pre-Reviews For New Licenses (chewkeanho-rlos, chewkeanho-cos, chewkeanho-gpos)

[Bruce Perens]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:48 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> This may be an emerging best practice, but it's certainly not ubiquitous
practice amongst U.S. legal professionals.

I have worked very extensively with lawyers, and have come to the
conclusion that although a lot of them have spent a great deal of time and
work on education, that there are some really good lawyers out there, but
the average is not terrific in quality. And a good many hate their jobs and
that shows too. One really great lawyer that I work with brought up this
issue years ago. If you find a great one, nurture them.



On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 10:48 AM Aaron Williamson <aaron at williamson.legal>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:48 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>> The word "SHALL" must not be used in a license. Please replace all
>> occurrences of "SHALL" with "MUST" and see
>> https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/
>> for the reasons you must do so.
>>
>> I am assuming you are not a legal professional, I think one would not
>> have missed that issue by now.
>>
>
> This may be an emerging best practice, but it's certainly not ubiquitous
> practice amongst U.S. legal professionals. On the contrary, my experience
> is that "shall" is still more commonly used, regardless of the type of
> legal document in question.
>
>

-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20241002/d1902afa/attachment.htm>