[License-discuss] [License-review] CC withdrawl of CC0 from OSI process
forums at david-woolley.me.uk
Mon Feb 27 22:12:41 UTC 2012
Bruce Perens wrote:
> The structure of laws, courts, and contracts is indeed a machine that
> executes statements of rules. That it does so /fuzzily/ and through
> human rather than machine elements is not necessarily a /flaw /of the
> system, in that it is invariably asked to handle unforseen problems, and
> extends itself by doing so.
Where I would see a particular advantage in a machine processable
language, would in handling ANDs, ORs and the scope of particular
conditions. There was a recent example of UK secondary legislation that
made an AND/OR/negation type of mistake, in the wording of a statutory
notice that was supposed to summarise primary legislation. As a result,
it appeared to imply that certain sorts of debts to a landlord could
never be recovered.
> A machine-executed language for legal rule sets is a frequently
> expressed, unachieved dream. But any program in such a language would
> necessarily be closed in its capabilities, and would need to fall back
> on humans for those unforseen problems. So, you wouldn't lose the courts
> or the arguing over what something "really means".
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
More information about the License-discuss