gnu-misc-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Eben was absent that day in law school


From: Isaac
Subject: Re: Eben was absent that day in law school
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 14:02:16 -0600
User-agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:32:06 +0100, Alexander Terekhov <address@hidden> wrote:
> http://www.ifso.ie/documents/gplv3-launch-2006-01-16.html#em-warranty
> 
> -----
> The warranty exclusions that were in GPL2 have not been changed saving
> one way: I took them out of all uppercase.
> 
> [laughter]
> 
> I've wanted to do that for a very long time. I've wanted to do that for 
> a very long time because no lawyer on Earth knows what they aren't in
> mixed case and everybody seems to think that everybody else knows and 
> that he's the only one that doesn't know and he was absent that day in 
> law school.
> 
> Sometimes, you just gotta do what you gotta do.
> -----
> 
> United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit:
> 
> "Uniform Commercial Code ยง 2-316(2), which requires that any
> exclusion or modification of the implied warranty of merchantability
> be conspicuous, and that any exclusion or modification of the implied
> warranty of fitness for a particular purpose be made in a conspicuous
> writing. A contract's warranty disclaimer satisfies the conspicuous
> requirement when it is printed in all capital letters, when it appears
> in a larger type than the terms around it, or when it is in a larger
> and boldface type. Likewise, a disclaimer in boldface type, printed in
> all capitals on the face of the warranty above the buyer's signature
> meets the definition of conspicuousness. A disclaimer is not [*25]
> conspicuous, however, when it is printed in small print on the back of
> the document, when it is the same size and typeface as the terms
> around it, or when it is not in boldface or capital lettering."
> 
> But we all know that the GPL is a license-not-a-contract, and so UCC
> and related case law simply doesn't apply.

Nonsense.  There are a number of reasons why states might not apply the UCC
to software, with the primary one being that UCC 2 is applicable to the sale
of goods.  However some jurisdictions have elected to apply UCC 2 law to 
software licenses.  

Isaac


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]