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] On Behalf Of Chuck Swiger Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 10:37 AM To: 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 < <mailto:massimo.zanib...@asterisell.com> 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 https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
