[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 10:37:05AM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Ok. Your email sig says you work for Red Hat. Does Red Hat sign
> indemnification and liquidation
> clauses for systems it sells?
No idea what you're speaking about. Is there a definition for
those terms. The GPL has a specific clause about dropping any IPR
claim related to software provided under that Licence.
> I understand the moral position. But it has to be supported by
> business practices that manage risks for customers. No offense
> intended, but that is how open source can become a credible
> competitor.
Hum, we always seems to have very very different perception of
what reality is. Seen a customer of Microsoft or IBM who managed
to sue them because the software was not what they though they bought ?
My feeling is that the IT industry so far has afgreed to be
tied to legal terms providing them zero recourse in case of conflict
(at least for most of the base software), and as a result they
seems to feel more and more okay to use software where they have
far more control and freedom but where the Licence contains
"THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FIT-
NESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
I think your attempt at saying that open source is not
yet a credible competitor (can become == is not yet) tends
to prove a slight bias or deformed perception of reality (problem
which certainly affects me too, but heck I'm typing this from
the Linux Symposium meeting in Ottawa soo...i :-)
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/
veillard@redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
|
