[Legal wording] Hippocratic license section 3.1 final and clause: AND vs OR ? #62
Description
I have a question, point of clarification about the legal wording of the license and generated versions of the license.
Disclaimer: I do not have formal law training, nor am I a lawyer or legal agent.
I noticed on generated licenses, in the final clause of section 3.1 (the "Licensee SHALL NOT" section), the word and is used to link all the "shall not" items.
e.g. https://firstdonoharm.dev/version/3/0/bod-eco-media-my-soc-sup-tal-usta-xuar.html
3.1.17. Interfere with Workers' free exercise of the right to organize and associate (See Article 20, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights; C087 - Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), International Labour Organization; Article 8, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights); and
3.1.18. Harm the environment in a manner inconsistent with local, state, national, or international law.
For the shall not section, is this the correct/intended meaning?
Since the use of and seems to imply that, in a literal interpretation, that licensee cannot do ALL of these things, but may do some of them which obviously is not the intent of the license/contract.
It seems the better linking word to use would be or, or and/or
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6220/how-should-and-and-or-be-used-when-listing-items-in-a-contract
https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/lawwire/and-or-and-the-proper-use-of-legal-language/
Maybe this is too much of a computer science/programmer reading and not a legal reading of the text, but it seems potentially problematic and/or ambiguous to me.
For the 3.2 "SHALL" section, the use of and makes sense.
the full license section 3.1 has the same issue
