Yes. Sadly I have learned a fair bit about drafting post-mpl ;)
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