On 23/12/03 10:27 am, "Ramanraj K" ramanraj@md4.vsnl.net.in wrote:
If I say I have extracted the above from the GPL, you need not take my word for granted. You can visit http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html and verify if my claim is correct. Similarly, one may verify output from software without taking it for granted, and this makes the need for a warranty unnecessary.
This is what I find surprising about commercial software. All hardware comes with a warranty which covers manufacturing defects for a certain period of time. And invariably a replacement is offered if a certain unit turns out to be defective. And in cases of design defects which are a health hazard to customers, the product is recalled and the customers possibly refunded.
But with software, all bets are off. No one takes responsibilty for security risks which cost customers time and money. The best one can hope for are patches from the vendor, which hopefully doesn't break anything else and doesn't open up anymore security holes. This has led to software with so many security holes (mostly commercial ones!). I think it is time customers demanded some kind of warranty for commercial software - but I do agree that it is hard to define what kind of protection it should provide the customer with.
Verifying the output is not practical for the average end user except for the most trivial piece of software.
regards Chandru