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

Re: licensing of XMPP specifications

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 12:36:07AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> The proposed license talks about a "Specification", which becomes a bit
> problematic, as soon as I modify the Specification to the point it is
> not a "Specification" anymore.  I could turn it into a poem, or into a
> summary description, or into a sci-fi novel, or into...
> But I'm repeating myself: as you yourself said, that was discussed in
> the previous thread.  Nonetheless, the situation hasn't improved from
> this point of view...

To be fair, "Specification" is just a defined legal term. It does not
impose any legal restriction on the nature of the amended work, though
if you did turn it into a poem then the wording of the licence would
seem a little odd! I don't think it causes any legal problems using
that word, and I don't think there is any need to change it.

> [...]
> > >> Warranty
> > >>
> > >> This Specification is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind,
> > >> express or implied, [...]
> A better title for this section would be "Disclaimer of warranty", or
> "No warranty", I think.

Fair point, though not the end of the world if it stays in the current
form (lawyers are trained to ignore section headings ;-)).

Also, as regards the SHOUTY CAPITALS thing, I gather some
jurisdictions in the US make this a legal requirement, so the board
may want to check their local legal position before finalising the
non-shouty version.



Reply to: