Yes. Sadly I have learned a fair bit about drafting post-mpl ;) On Nov 26, 2012 7:40 PM, "Richard Fontana" fontana@sharpeleven.org wrote:
On 11/26/2012 10:04 PM, Luis Villa wrote:
Attention conservation notice: minor drafting quibbling follows.
Secs. 11.4 and 15 should probably be redrafted to remove shall.
Shall should only be used under very specific circumstances- basically as a synonym for "has a duty to."
[...]
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".
So would you similarly critique the several similar usages of "shall" in MPL 2.0? :-)
- RF
copyleft-next mailing list copyleft-next@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/copyleft-next