On 11/26/2012 10:04 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
Sec. 15:
"If any provision of this License is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, it [has a duty to] not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License..."
shall -> will ("it will not affect...")
"and reviewing courts [have a duty to] reform such provision to the minimum extent necessary to make such provision valid and enforceable."
This is not grammatically incorrect, but it's a little odd, since the courts have no duty here to do anything. :) Could use instead: "and We intend that reviewing courts should reform..." or simply "reviewing courts should reform".
The problem with "should" is that in ordinary English it suggests something a bit more like 'wishful thinking' than what I believe lawyers mean by 'shall' in the way these kinds of clauses are typically worded. There's even a tradition in free software/open source licensing culture of treating "shall" as mandatory language and replacement of "shall" with "should" as elimination of mandatoriness.
I'd be willing to go with this:
The invalidity or unenforceability under applicable law of any provision of this License does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License. Such provision is to be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it valid and enforceable.
Though the second sentence no doubt violates some pedantic Adams rule against use of the passive voice. :)
- RF