Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 07:29 pm Gerry Quinn wrote (in article ): > In article <0001HW.BF30E17400E9F459F0407550@news.verizon.net>, > randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net says... > >> No it is not. It might be a bad idea for you to buy it, and if >> you do, you get and deserve the results obtained. It is not >> 'just plain wrong' for Microsoft to sell commercial products. >> If there is anything wrong in the software arena today, it is >> that so many people are willing to pay good money for bad >> products. Now, you could argue that there should be a law >> allowing people to sue over damages due to use of faulty >> software, but to do so, you'd have to figure out a way to >> overhaul the incredibly one-sided "End User License Agreements" >> (EULAs) that we are forced to agree to in order to install >> software. > > If people are allowed to sue for damages due to faulty software, why > should distributors of open-source software be exempt from such > remedies? I didn't think I implied anything of the kind, and it was certainly not my intent. Free software has these same "EULA" style documents in many cases, particularly the larger, more 'real' projects that have actual installers. As I said, the problem is people are willing to accept the idea that they waive their rights in order to install software. You could not get someone to sign such a contract when buying a car, but they will for software. I don't think it matters whether or not you pay for the software or download it for free. The real problem with a lawsuit against open source software would be in determining who the defendants would be. The fact that the practioners in software development can not effectively be held responsible for their products is one of the most important barriers to it being perceived as a true profession. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .