[anigbrowl]

Neither; as I said, I think it's part of a superordinate (higher) clause, of which (i) and (ii) were subclauses. Mind, I am just going off the short extract on the Freezenet page- I didn't bother to dig out the original document and work back from page 63 to get back to the very top context. I've decided to wait the 30 days for the final text to appear and then make a decision to support it or not based on the final text rather than a draft.

[walterbell]

I've found a draft with indentation (QQ.G.10) that supports your point. Thanks for the explanation.

http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/Section-G-Copyright...

[anigbrowl]

You're welcome. I think it's a great shame (and probably no accident) that really important stuff like legislation that can affect the lives of millions of people is still presented in a form that makes interpretation extremely difficult for non-specialists.

[walterbell]

A variation on the legal-DSL inquiry upthread: what do you think about open-source code that ships with open-source legal terms-of-service which are enforced by the code? Even something as simple as attribution for CC-BY-4.0 does not have a "reference implementation" or lint-checker.

Some attempts have been made at Finance DSLs, http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23448/dsl-in-finance

[anigbrowl]

I'm very interested in this subject, but not especially expert at it, plus I haven't kept up with the technology on a daily basis for over a year, so I have no clue what the cutting-edge trends are right now. There is a HNer that has organized a couple of conferences around this theme at Berkeley and Stanford in the last few years. I will try to do some catching up on the issue and post anything cool I find.