3 ms·

@yodon, I gather you're a lawyer? (I am.) @Sirikon's idea could work if each phrase in his taxonomy (e.g., "cannot" and "hold-liable") were mapped to standard

@yodon, I gather you're a lawyer? (I am.) @Sirikon's idea could work if each phrase in his taxonomy (e.g., "cannot" and "hold-liable") were mapped to standardized, more-detailed language, akin to a macro. This would be analogous to the widespread use of three-letter abbreviations in INCOTERMS 2010 [0], such as "DDP" to signify that goods are to be "delivered duty paid," or "EXW" (ex works) to signify that the customer will pick up the goods at the seller's factory. Each of those terms, and many others, is fleshed out in INCOTERMS publications [1]. It'd also be analogous to the old commercial code books in the days of charge-by-the-word telegraphy, where COGNOSCO might mean "Dining out this evening, send my dress clothes here" or DIONYSIA might mean "Amputation is considered necessary." [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incoterms [1] https://iccwbo.org/resources-for-business/incoterms-rules/incoterms-rules-2010/ https://iccwbo.org/resources-for-business/incoterms-rules/in... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_code_(communications)#Examples https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_code_(communication...

yodon 9y ago
@dctoedt As they say IANAL, but more importantly I suspect the project author isn’t a lawyer. The issue isn’t the viability of a standard for simplifying legal documents (insert overused XKCD standards comic), its the viability of a standard for simplifying legal documents that was designed by non-experts. That said, I’m doubtful a code-book approach like you suggest would result in a net improvement in readability of existing licenses (which I think is the goal), particularly in an era when AI-driven contract analysis engines are starting to be able to read and summarize legal documents for informing normal people on the document’s meaning as well as experienced lawyers. My guess is in 2-3 years something like google translate will actually be able to do a better job of achieving these license readability goals than any of the human-authored approaches in discussion here.
- Sirikon 9y ago
  No, I'm not a lawyer, only a developer with interests on legal terms for open source software, and maybe should have clarified this on my repo.
Sirikon 9y ago
"@Sirikon's idea could work if each phrase in his taxonomy (e.g., "cannot" and "hold-liable") were mapped to standardized, more-detailed language, akin to a macro." Maybe a good first step could be the definition of this language if it doesn't exist yet.
- dctoedt 9y ago
  For several years I've been playing around with something like that as a side project — see http://www.CommonDraft.org http://www.CommonDraft.org (which isn't especially pretty; I'm in the middle of refactoring it to make it more Lego-like).

yodon 9y ago

@dctoedt As they say IANAL, but more importantly I suspect the project author isn’t a lawyer. The issue isn’t the viability of a standard for simplifying legal documents (insert overused XKCD standards comic), its the viability of a standard for simplifying legal documents that was designed by non-experts. That said, I’m doubtful a code-book approach like you suggest would result in a net improvement in readability of existing licenses (which I think is the goal), particularly in an era when AI-driven contract analysis engines are starting to be able to read and summarize legal documents for informing normal people on the document’s meaning as well as experienced lawyers. My guess is in 2-3 years something like google translate will actually be able to do a better job of achieving these license readability goals than any of the human-authored approaches in discussion here.

Sirikon 9y ago
No, I'm not a lawyer, only a developer with interests on legal terms for open source software, and maybe should have clarified this on my repo.

Sirikon 9y ago

"@Sirikon's idea could work if each phrase in his taxonomy (e.g., "cannot" and "hold-liable") were mapped to standardized, more-detailed language, akin to a macro." Maybe a good first step could be the definition of this language if it doesn't exist yet.

dctoedt 9y ago
For several years I've been playing around with something like that as a side project — see http://www.CommonDraft.org http://www.CommonDraft.org (which isn't especially pretty; I'm in the middle of refactoring it to make it more Lego-like).