From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-13 01:35:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.r-kom.de!feeder01.news.de.uu.net!news-1.bank.dresdner.net!not-for-mail From: James Kanze Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: software suits, was Re: Long names are doom ? Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 10:18:33 +0200 Organization: Dresdner Bank AG Message-ID: <3B2721D9.83CF4E07@dresdner-bank.com> References: <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> <9g33oo$rp$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3b267365$1@news.tce.com> <3B267A3D.1B2F2750@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9g61hj$35f$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Reply-To: default@dresdner-bank.com NNTP-Posting-Host: ffzj09tz.bank.dresdner.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD drebazen10 (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr,de Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8642 comp.lang.java.programmer:75876 Date: 2001-06-13T10:18:33+02:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: > Exactly! When you go to buy a house or a used car labeled "as is", a > court would likely rule that you had reasonable opportunity to > inspect the house or car and look for flaws & hence could have and > should have known what you were buying. Even then, you are protected against hidden flaws. In particular, at least in Germany, if the car has been in a major wreck, the seller is required to inform you about it, and is liable if he doesn't. That isn't really relevant here, though. In the case of most software, the seller *has* told you that they practice absolutly no quality control measures, and that what they are selling is really just a pile of shit. The relevant law here is more related to the fact that you didn't sign anything, and you probably didn't read anything even if you could have, and you certainly didn't intend to sign away all of your rights. In the end, regardless of contract, a consumer has a certain number of rights. Today, many of these are explictly spelled out, but there are also implicit rights concerning hidden defects, etc. And I cannot give these rights away, regardless of what I sign. If I buy a new car, and the brakes fail after driving the car 100 meters, then the vendor is responsible for the accident. Not just because the car manufacturer offers a guarantee (none of the guarantees I've seen include civil responsibility for accidents), but because I have a legal right to expect the brakes to work. The legal right is based on the principle that any reasonable person would expect the brakes to work on a new car, and not necessarily take any precautions against the possibility of their not working. In the case of software, the problem is complicated. What should a reasonable person expect? If the software is seriously deficient, compared to other, similar products, then I suspect that you would have a case. Given the typical quality of shrink wrapped software, however, it's hard to imagine anything significantly worse. -- James Kanze mailto:kanze@gabi-soft.de Conseils en informatique orient�e objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung Ziegelh�ttenweg 17a, 60598 Frankfurt, Germany Tel. +49(069)63198627