Hi, Larry-- Computer grammars can have context-free parsers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context-free_grammar The phrase I used was as much a term of art from computer language / formal grammar theory, much as the terms of a software license involve terms of art from the law. Regards, -- -Chuck On Jan 13, 2017, at 11:13 AM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote: > Chuck Swiger wrote: <> > > 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. > > The law DOES come in a "fully denormalized grammar suitable for parsing," but > of course no parsing is ever context-free. > > 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. > > That's the world we live in. Please don't disparage developers alone for this > problem. > > /Larry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: License-discuss [mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org > <mailto:license-discuss-boun...@opensource.org>] On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:37 AM > To: license-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:license-discuss@opensource.org> > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] step by step interpretation of common > permissive licenses > > On Jan 13, 2017, at 10:05 AM, Massimo Zaniboni > <massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com <mailto:massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com>> > wrote: > > 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. > > 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. > [<LER>] <snip> > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@opensource.org <mailto:License-discuss@opensource.org> > https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss > <https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss>
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
