Re: License review request
Arnoud Engelfriet wrote:
> Andrew Donnellan wrote:
>> Of course that doesn't mean it's not required, just that the evidence
>> given was irrelevant. I've seen most places do it and lawyers
>> recommending it and so on, and as it is a legal disclaimer I think it
>> would be wise to use emphasised text, at least put asterisks around it
>> or something to draw attention.
>
> Laws like the Uniform Commercial Code do require that disclaimers
> of warranty be "by a writing and conspicuous".
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/article2.htm#s2-316
>
> I suppose you could be equally conspicuous with boldface or
> differently colored text.
Hmm. I'd really think conspicuous is more about *placement* than emphasis.
A warranty disclaimer in ALL CAPS subtly located on the bottom of the
package is inconspicuous; one in any form of text located front and center
on the package is conspicuous.
Sigh. Thinking about this, this means putting your warranty disclaimer in
the license, which only a small percentage of recipients even read, is
probably inconspicuous by nature.
> The problem is, as far as the lawyers
> are concerned, all caps seems to work just fine. Why use
> something different? At best, the court will rule it's just
> as good as all caps. At worst, they'll say you deviated from
> common industry practice, which confuses consumers, and therefore
> your disclaimer was *not* conspicuous.
Well, when someone wins a court case invalidating a disclaimer because all
caps are unreadable.... it'll change then, I guess. :-/
> So it's not just monkey-see, monkey-do, but more like
> monkey-worry-about-malpractice.
So "common industry practice" is the reason -- that sort of makes sense,
even though it's unutterably stupid.
It seems like any disclaimer in the *MIT* license would be relatively
conspicuous, seeing as how it's more text than the whole rest of the
license. In contrast, I'd expect any disclaimer tucked on page nine of a
ten-page-long license to be found inconspicuous. And lawyers do *THAT* all
the time.
:-P
> Arnoud
>
--
Nathanael Nerode <neroden@fastmail.fm>
Bush admitted to violating FISA and said he was proud of it.
So why isn't he in prison yet?...
Reply to: