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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10ad19,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10ad19,public X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74 X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-11 07:56:38 PST From: "Dale King" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.awk,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml References: <9f8b7b$h0e$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9f8r0i$lu3$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fgagu$6ae$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9fjgha$blf$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <35mqhtkdfma2rggv1htcaq6vfn2ihs67a1@4ax.com> <9fli1b$4aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Organization: LJK Software <9folnd$1t8$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3B1FE1FE.B49AE27F@noaa.gov> <9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: Long names are doom ? Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 01:10:40 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 NNTP-Posting-Host: weis3.indy.tce.com Message-ID: <3b24dc21$1@news.tce.com> X-Trace: 11 Jun 2001 09:56:33 -0600, weis3.indy.tce.com Organization: Thomson Consumer Electronics Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!newsfeed.cwix.com!pullfeed!news.tce.com!weis3.indy.tce.com Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8548 comp.lang.awk:2981 comp.lang.clarion:21662 comp.lang.java.programmer:75292 comp.lang.pl1:970 comp.lang.vrml:3713 Date: 2001-06-09T01:10:40-05:00 List-Id: "Marin David Condic" wrote in message news:9fotpi$4k6$1@nh.pace.co.uk... > When I was in kindergarden, the teacher gave us these sage words of advice: > "Hot things burn. Sharp things cut." You *expect* coffee to be hot - that's > the point. If it was cold, you would complain. Through your own > carelessness, a thing expected to be what it is is actually what it is and > it does you harm. That is the fault of McDonalds? OTOH, One *expects* > software to work just like one expects their car to work or their TV to > work. (O.K. We all know better, but why do we stand for it?) When it doesn't > do what it is expected to do, we let the manufacturer off the hook - even > when there are proven methods for making software more reliable and they are > not followed? Unfortunately, a software lawsuit would have little ground to stand on. Imagine if McDonald's required all customers who order hot coffee to sign an agreement before they are given the coffee where they acknowledge that the coffee is hot and can cause burns and that the customer assumes all responsibility for the proper handling of the coffee. If you got burnt from the coffee would you be able to win a suit agains McDonald's? Not likely, since you agreed to accept the responsibility. Read most software license agreements and you'll find that most are like my hypothetical coffee agreement. Here is a sample from an IBM license agreement: "IBM does not warrant uninterrupted or error-free operation of the Program or that we will correct all Program defects. You are responsible for the results obtained from the use of the Program." And since "IBM WILL LICENSE THE PROGRAM TO YOU ONLY IF YOU FIRST ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. " then you don't really have a legal leg to stand on. They even have clauses limiting their liability. -- Dale King