[Python-Dev] Licensing // PSF // Motion of non-confidence

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 01:58:26 pm Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> Antoine Pitrou writes:
>  > Which is the very wrong thing to do, though. License text should
>  > be understandable by non-lawyer people;
>
> This is a common mistake, at least with respect to common-law
> systems. Licenses are written in a formal language intended to have
> precise semantics, especially in the event of a dispute going to
> court.  What you wrote is precisely analogous to "a computer program
> should be understandable to non-programmer people".

You've never used Apple's much-missed Hypertalk, have you? :)

Given that Python has often been described as executable pseudo-code, I 
think it is ironic that you're implying that comprehensibility of 
language is a bad thing! Python is no less precise in its semantics 
than (say) APL.

There are movements to discourage unreadable legalise in favour of 
simpler language that is more readable while still being precise. For 
example, the Canadian Bar Association supports the Plain English 
Movement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_Language_Movement

and of course excessive formality and legalise is often criticised even 
by lawyers for *harming* precision. (When even the judge can't work out 
what you mean, that's a problem.)

None of this is to imply that the Python licence is guilty of such 
excessive legalise. But I think that, to the extent that other 
priorities and legal obligations permit it, we should always be be open 
to the idea of improving the readability and comprehensibility 
of "legal source code".


> The fact is, in the U.S. if an ordinary person thinks they understand
> a license, then it's probably quite unpredictable what a court will
> say about attempts to enforce it.

I'm not sure that this is a fact or just an opinion, but *my* opinion is 
that this is a safe bet. Most people in the industry consider that it's 
generally unpredictable what a court will say about licences in general 
(particularly the shrink-wrap variety).

It's certainly true that the general public generally has no clue about 
licences, contracts, or legal agreements in general, but then 
agreements written by lawyers aren't always much better. I've been 
asked to sign agreements that are nonsensical, e.g. circular 
definitions where Clause N says to refer to Clause X, and Clause X says 
to refer to Clause N, or NDAs that prohibited me from doing *anything* 
with the "confidential information" the other party gave me, including 
the work they wanted me to do. Or blatantly illegal, e.g. non-compete 
clauses that don't have a hope in hell of surviving a legal challenge, 
including one that would have meant that I was agreeing to never work 
for any person or company in Australia who ever had with a telephone.



-- 
Steven D'Aprano