DFS <nospam@xxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
> Linonut wrote:
>>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
>>
>> Ah, yes, very sensible for free software that can be copied and
>> modified by anybody at any time.
> Very sensible for any complex product used in untold and unknown scenarios.
> And free has nothing to do with it, you paid Windows developer you :)
> Vendors offering paid distros don't offer liability protection either.
Why should they
You're paying for the packaging, the support and the media/books/etc.
The software is available free. All you're paying for is the convenience and
support.
How much would you recommend the GPL licensor pay if the software breaks?
The cost to the customer? as in, a full refund perhaps? Fine, 0 paid, 0
returned. Simple.
With microsoft you're paying to use the software.
And microsoft shares that clause. Doesn't it doofy.
Are you going to start attacking microsoft which is a COMMERCIAL company?
for not abiding by any warranties?
And they limit their liability to how much? $5 or something silly isn't it?
Even if you paid $600 for their Vista PoS?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
