Re: [d@DCC] B.2.3 Contractual limitations on exceptions and uses

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_ flora.ca>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:34:12 -0400 (EDT)

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003, tOM Trottier wrote:

> 4. Most software makers refuse to guarantee their software works
> correctly and refuse to accept responsibility if it doesn't. This is
> unacceptable in a consumer product. When a product advertises certain
> capabilities, the seller should be responsible for the capabilities
> working properly.

  Wow -- now that is going in a direction I couldn't possibly go.


  The treatment of software as something that should be considered a
manufactured product is something that I strongly disagree with.  By
codifying warranties in software we would be further promoting "software
manufacturing" and likely throwing out the Free/Libre software baby with
the no-accountability-with-non-FLOSS dirty bathwater.

  I believe the solution to the software accountability problem is further
promotion/education of FLOSS accountability/transparancy, not to make the
problem worse through mandating warranties.


 Now that you have copied this to Heritage Committee I feel it is now
required for me to clearly oppose this in my submission.

> tOM
---
 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/


--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca