Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[Legal wording] Hippocratic license section 3.1 final and clause: AND vs OR ? #62

Open
wesinator opened this issue Oct 4, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@wesinator
Copy link

wesinator commented Oct 4, 2022

I have a question, point of clarification about the legal wording of the license and generated versions of the license.
Disclaimer: I do not have formal law training, nor am I a lawyer or legal agent.

I noticed on generated licenses, in the final clause of section 3.1 (the "Licensee SHALL NOT" section), the word and is used to link all the "shall not" items.
e.g. https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/3/0/bod-eco-media-my-soc-sup-tal-usta-xuar.html


3.1.17. Interfere with Workers' free exercise of the right to organize and associate (See Article 20, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; C087 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), International Labour Organization; Article 8, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights); and

3.1.18. Harm the environment in a manner inconsistent with local, state, national, or international law.


image

For the shall not section, is this the correct/intended meaning?
Since the use of and seems to imply that, in a literal interpretation, that licensee cannot do ALL of these things, but may do some of them which obviously is not the intent of the license/contract.

It seems the better linking word to use would be or, or and/or
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6220/how-should-and-and-or-be-used-when-listing-items-in-a-contract
https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/lawwire/and-or-and-the-proper-use-of-legal-language/

Maybe this is too much of a computer science/programmer reading and not a legal reading of the text, but it seems potentially problematic and/or ambiguous to me.

For the 3.2 "SHALL" section, the use of and makes sense.


the full license section 3.1 has the same issue
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant