On Monday 09 August 2004 7:24 pm, Jason Opperisano wrote:
> and as an aside--i find it hard to believe that there are people out there
> saying something along the lines of "we use commercial software becuase we
> can sue the manufacturer if it breaks."
I don't find that hard to believe :(
I think there are plenty of "business" people who live with the comforting
thought that they bought a big brand name, so that:
a) nobody can say "you bought a what?" when it does something strange
b) they can say "we want $1m damages" when it does something strange.
The fact that the former is almost as likely with a brand name as without, and
that the latter is totally laughable, does not enter into their thought
processes about what to buy and what to ignore.
> I know no one actual reads those EULA's that are presented at install
> time--but they say "if this software breaks, you can't sue us." where was
> that big lawsuit against microsoft for damages resulting from <insert
> favorite ms exploit here>?
Indeed. I have read several M$ licence agreements for precisely this reason,
and the basis of several is that "if your jurisdiction lets us get away with
it, we disclaim all responsibility for anything this software might do, and
if it doesn't do what you think we claimed it would (in a written contract,
but not in any advertising materials), then your only recompense will be the
replacement of the media it came on, provided you claim within 90 days of
buying it".
The Open Source community would benefit significantly if more people read
commercial software licences.
Regards,
Antony.
--
What makes you think I know what I'm talking about?
I just have more O'Reilly books than most people.
Please reply to the list;
please don't CC me.
