[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.


> 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: