Plea for help: The detriment of using Microsoft products

[smith at missioncriticallinux.com (Jeffry Smith)]

On Tue, 16 May 2000, Kevin D. Clark wrote:

> Derek Martin writes:
> 
> > Tort law is tort law.  What's the difference?  If Microsoft's products (or
> > any other software company's, for that matter) cause you to lose
> > time/money/resources, why can't they be held accountable?  It just doesn't
> > make any sense.
> 
> IANAL, but the last time I actually read a shrink-wrap license
> carefully, I recall reading that by agreeing to this license, I gave
> up that right.
> 
> Actually, here's the relevant section from Microsoft's EULA:
> 
> : LIMITED WARRANTY
> : NO WARRANTIES. Microsoft expressly disclaims any
> : warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any
> : related documentation is provided "as is" without warranty or
> : condition of any kind, either express or implied, including, without
> : limitation, the implied warranties or conditions of merchantability,
> : fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk
> : arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with
> : you.
> : NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES. In no event shall Microsoft or its
> : suppliers be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without
> : limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business
> : interruption, loss of business information, or any other pecuniary
> : loss) arising out of the use of or inability to use this Microsoft
> : product, even if Microsoft has been advised of the possibility of such
> : damages. Because some states/jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion
> : or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages,
> : the above limitation may not apply to you.
> 
> I doubt that you'll find a mass-produced software product out on the
> market without a similar license agreement.
> 
> Given the current state of software development, coupled with our
> current legal environment, an organization would be taking a big risk
> in releasing a software product with any other kind of license.
> 
> --kevin
> 
Boeing would love to be able to say that.  Read Minasi's book.  The reason 
for the current state of software development is the above EULAs (at
least one reason).  Because no one holds them accountable, they don't
even try to have reasonable SW.  I find it interesting that Open
Source (at least GNU), while also disclaiming liability, at least
gives a reason: 
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. 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. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE
DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR
CORRECTION.

Dispite that, it's some of the most reliable software (because it's
built by those who care, and is massively subject to peer review?)

jeff 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith      Technical Sales Consultant     Mission Critical Linux
smith at missioncriticallinux.com phone:978.446.9166,x271 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thought for today:  Between infinite and short there is a big difference.
		-- G.H. Gonnet


-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).