Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>The entire point and *purpose* of a lawyer specializing in contract law is
>to write clearly. They're not writing clearly for the average reader,
>necessarily; that requires a whole different type of phrasing. They're
>writing clearly for the interpretation of the contract by a judge, and in
>so doing they're drawing on *centuries* of definitions.
>
>The reason why documents written by lawyers sound the way they do is
>because lawyers avoid words that are ambiguous and use words that have
>been clearly, explicitly, and unambiguously defined in the law, in legal
>precedent, or in common law. *This is important.* This is a large
>portion of the strength on which the license rests; definitions are very
>significant and very important to get right.
Which is probably all true. Here are the snags:
A. Having a judge know what it means is only useful if we go to
court which we do not wish to do.
B. If only the legally literate understand it, then typical programmer/
engineer may not understand it.
C. We need to define _which_ set of meanings we mean - USA, Canada, England,
Scotland, Australia, India, ... and that is just for the english versions.
While the 'AL' by avoiding the special language avoids all those issues,
but _instead_ would require legal discussion of what it meant at the
time of the dispute.
So _if_ we need a "Legally Binding Form" - we also need a "This is
what that means" form.
--
Nick Ing-Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Via, but not speaking for: Texas Instruments Ltd.
