🚀 go-pugleaf

johnston@oscar.ccm.udel.edu writes:
> In article <yD4w020w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (To the Ground) w
> >johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu writes:
>                                           * Almost *
> >> Service and warranty are separate issues.  ^ Nobody warrants software.
> 
> <sigh> 
> 
> >I know for a fact that this is untrue since I have worked for a company
> >which does warrant software.  They warrant that it will do exactly what
> >you bought it for, and that if for some reason it doesn't they'll give you
> >a full refund of the purchase price.
> 
> That's terrific, but if you are following up with a point that is
> largely one of symantics, the least you could do is tell us something
> interesting about the type of software that your company is offering.

The company in question sells mainly utility software -- backup and archiving
programs, text editors, encryption programs, little useful programs.  Think
of the sort of utilities GNU has provided so far, but oriented more towards
MS-DOS.  Prices are low -- at shareware levels, generally.  Whilst I worked
there, I would often fix reported bugs within 24 hours and get new versions
sent out to the customer.

I didn't think that the specifics were particularly relevant to the 
point I was making, which is that just because most big US software 
companies don't provide any warranty doesn't mean that there's 
something inherently implausible about commercial software being sold 
cheaply, with good technical support and with a warranty.

In short, if people want warranted software and bugs which get fixed, one
possible approach is to buy from companies who are good at fixing things
and providing warranties.  This generally means buying from small companies,
since they can't compete with the big guys on packaging or useless features
and have to compete by giving better service.

In short, GNU is not the only way to get affordable software with good
technical support and a warranty.

> To get back to the point, this type of warranty is not that uncommon --
> it is more or less a "satisfaction guaranteed" arrangement, and the 
> liability is typically limited to the purchase price of the software.
> 
> What is never (er, almost never) done is to assume liability for
> losses resulting from the use of software. 

In the UK, liability for misuse is almost never assumed by the manufacturer
of any product.  Manufacturers are not generally liable with regard
to minor defects either.  So software isn't such a special case. [*]

I suspect that over here one could take a software manufacturer to court
and obtain damages for losses resulting from gross defects in their software;
perhaps someone else in the UK can comment on the likelihood of such a thing
occurring?

I gather the US has a concept of unlimited liability, which cannot be
restricted via contracts. That's presumably why software there is 
licensed rather than sold, and so ironically enough that would be why 
the manufacturers end up being able to disclaim *all* responsibility 
for the quality of their software.


mathew
[ [*] I'm not a lawyer, so apply salt to taste. ]