[Fwd: Germany]

SamBC sambc at nights.force9.co.uk
Sun Jan 28 15:18:07 UTC 2001

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Johnson" <david at usermode.org>

> On Saturday 27 January 2001 07:48 am, Angelo Schneider wrote:
> It is my own private opinion, and IANAL, that all commercial software
> have the basic warranty of fitness of merchantibility. Even commercial
> Source Software should be warrantied. If the seller wishes to absolve
> of all warranty and liability, this should be made explicitly clear to
> buyer at the time of purchase.

I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in the UK this is part of
law, and unavoidable

> Non-commercial software is a complete different matter. And this
> should be provided by the seller, and have no repercussions to the
> (unless the author is the seller) or any contributors. If I buy a
> I want recourse if the bristles fall out in a week. Likewise, I want
> software I have paid money for to actually do what it says it is going
to do.

And you may go to the seller to get your money back, which they must do,
and they go to their supplier, who must refund them, etc etc etc down to
the manufaturer, or author in some situations (nb: author may be a
company as well)

> In the Open Source community we have grown to accept free and
> source code as a matter of fact. The next step for the software
industry to
> take is to begin treating our products just as every other industry
> theirs: as merchantable goods. Offer a warranty as a matter of course
for any
> bits you sell. A 100% return policy is a tiny burden to bear, and if
> becomes standard for commercial Open Source, the proprietary side
would soon
> be shamed into following.

It worries me that the rest of the world does not provide these
automatic warranties, it really does. At least that puts the UK as  a
world leader in *one* respect... shame about all the others...


More information about the License-discuss mailing list