🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BsMHA6.1tM@metropolis.com> robert@metropolis.com (Robert Munyer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug5.225027.25695@ifi.unizh.ch> lytras@avalon.physik.unizh.ch
>(Lytras Apostolos) writes:
>
>> [...] the matter is very serious though, because in some cases if the
>> software did not do *exactly* what the clients wanted (which is obviously
>> rather difficult to guarantee) they wouldn't have to pay for it [...]
>
>This is actually pretty close to being a very good idea.
>
>If a program does not do *exactly* what the documentation says, the customer
>should get his money back.  No matter how long ago the product was purchased.

Excuse my interrupting you here, but I said "if the program does not do
what the clients WANTED", I did not say "if the program does not do what
the documentation or the specification say". There is a *huge*
difference in this. Remember your american disclaimers of the style:
"<FIRM> DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
[..blabla...] INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE." This so called agreement is not even valid with swiss judges,
because it is not signed by both parties, so someone could come along
and say, hey, I cannot save files in <NeXTspreadsheet> Format from Macintosh
<SomeSpreadshet> so I will not pay for <SomeSpreadsheet> but I will
use it all the same, and there is *nothing* we can do about that. Things
get better however, as I was told, next year a new law will pass, which
will protect intellectual property. Then it will be a different case.

Hope this cleared things up a little.
- Apostolos
-- 
	 lytras@ifi.unizh.ch   		|   Apostolos Lytras
	 lytras@avalon.physik.unizh.ch	|   Informatik Club der Uni
	 lytras@amiga.physik.unizh.ch  	|   Zuerich, SysAdmin