[OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms review

[Francis Davey]

On 26 August 2010 22:02, SomeoneElse <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> Thanks Mike.  Here's hoping m'learned friends can be prevailed upon to
> accept that something a little closer to standard English could still be
> used for the CTs!

Its not my call, but I have a preference for British English for a
contract whose applicable law that of England and Wales.

Speaking as a practising lawyer, there is _no_ reason to use archaic
or obscure English, nor to use overly complicated structures or
phrasing. Some technical language is useful or necessary, such as
"copyright" (which has a specific statutory meaning) or "licence"
(which is a useful concept that would be rather clumsy to avoid), but
that aside, it should be possible to write any contract in good
English.

Two remarks on any contract writing exercise:

[1] There _is_ a conflict between "clear and easy to understand in
plain English" and "short". Too many of my clients seem to think they
go together and "shorter is better". Anyone who has seen the results
of an obfuscated C contest will see that is not a general rule.
Lawyers can be expert at pithily saying something quite complicated,
but the result may be extremely obscure for the same reason as for the
C.

[2] All a lawyer can properly do is convert what the client (or
parties) want into a legal document. All too often clients ask lawyers
to draft contracts for them without realising that they have to decide
what the contract is going to say, before the lawyer can draft it. I
am sure OSMF gets this, but I think the point bears repeating. You
have to say what you want it to do, otherwise the lawyer has to guess
something to send back to you

All the best with this.

-- 
Francis Davey