Re: Request Discussion Pre-Reviews For New Licenses (chewkeanho-rlos, chewkeanho-cos, chewkeanho-gpos)

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:48 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 7:48 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
> [email protected]> 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

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org