some more details on the "FAQ-like" MPL text
Luis Villa
pass it along here as well.
Besides the other changes in Beta 2 (small tweaks to some language in
a further attempt to get it Just Right; improvements to the GPL
language; etc.) I also published on Tuesday a bit of an experiment: a
draft of the license which replaces the traditional section headers
with FAQ questions, like so:
Traditional:
2.2. Grants.
Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive license: . . .
FAQ-style:
2. What rights are granted to me by this license? Who are these
rights granted by?
Each Contributor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive license: . . .
The inspiration for this came from the apartment lease I signed in
December, which was done in this style and (oddly) almost a pleasure
to read.
This approach has two advantages. First, it helps you draft and
organize things more clearly. Since every paragraph was the answer to
a question, things were broken up into what normal human beings would
consider more logical units, instead of the giant blocks of text legal
documents sometimes sprawl into. Preparing the FAQified version of
Beta 2 made us aware of some MPL sections that had this problem, and
it helped us reorder and reorganize text as a result- something which
you can see in (for example) the new Section 8 of MPL 2 Beta 2, which
is part of the old Section 9 broken out so that it makes more sense
independently. Because of this, these changes will help every reader
of the license, even if we never publish another “FAQified” version.
Second, the questions clue a reader in to the key concepts of a
section. It is important that people still read everything. We’ve
tried to ensure that the questions do not change the meaning of the
“answers;” i.e., the body of the text, both by ensuring that the
“answer” or body text is the same between both versions and by
disclaiming any changes in the license itself. In other words, this
will help non-lawyers understand- but if for some reason, you need to
be absolutely sure, you (and possibly your lawyer) need to read the
whole thing carefully and without reference to the questions.
We’re looking forward to feedback on this, both from non-lawyers (does
this help you understand?) and from lawyers (this is an unusual
technique, and so suggestions on how to do it better are welcome). So
download it, read it, and let us know what you think.
http://mpl.mozilla.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/MPL-as-FAQ-B2.pdf
Andy Dufilie
I have not read the entire original B2 version and chose to skim the FAQ version first. The FAQ format is very helpful for finding answers to specific questions quickly, but I see a problem in that once you find the question you are interested in, the language used in the answer is different from the language style in the question.
In particular, Preamble 5. I saw this question and was interested in the answer, but the answer uses the term "represents" not found in the question. I had to switch back & forth between the original and the FAQ version in order to understand what it meant. After this experience I tried reading the original B2 version seeking information about contributors and I decided that I prefer the original version because the language is consistent and the clearly-marked sections already make it easy to find the information you want.
If the language in the FAQ answers were changed to match the language used in the question, then it would be fine, but I would not expect or recommend you to rewrite the entire thing.
Andy