Re: licensing of XMPP specifications
Ben Finney <email@example.com> wrote:
> Peter Saint-Andre <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > How about this (to be formatted in bold in the HTML, though we'd
> > lose that in ASCII)....
> Less shouty, so that's a good thing. Whether it passes the test of
> "conspicuous" as required under U.S. UCC, I don't know.
It's better, indeed.
The US UCC conspicuous test s2-103.1.b is essentially
Conspicuous terms include the following:
(i) for a person:
(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the
surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the
surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and
(B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than
the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the
surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text
of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the
Heading in capitals. Not the whole damn thing. And setting it off by
symbols is also fine. Actually, I don't see how putting the whole thing
in capitals satisfies (B), so I guess that relies on the court judgement
quoted. That judgement gives some examples of what that court will regard
as acceptable - it does not say those are the only ways to do it.
Also, you've been warned now that it will be less conspicuous, there are
any number of references available about the difficulty of reading long
SHOUTs, and the FSF's experts concluded there was no good reason for it.
It's not like anyone involved in this thread can plead it's the best
way they knew to be conspicuous any more.
Hope that encourages a readable warranty,
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct