On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 01:08:25PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:I don't think that standard disclaimer takes a way the *moral* responsibility (as opposed to the legal one.)
are responsible for being able to justify their claims. In other words, if developers claim the application is perfect for me, *then* I have the right to demand that it is. Maybe this is not very relevant to the thread;
Fortunately, all GPL programs are distributed under the terms that:
"EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.".
Clearly, the developers are not claiming that the application is perfect
for you.
If I make a load, public announcement saying that I've written this great piece of software that is the best thing since the reinvention of the wheel (;-)), and that will render all applications known so far hopelessly irrelevant, I think people have every right to shout at me if it doesn't. That's true even if I give the software away for free, and more importantly, I don't think adding a note in small print, or within a more or less hidden file included in the installation, saying that I don't *really* believe it does, changes anything.
- Toralf
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
