[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >It isn't actually all that surprising; mainly what managers are looking > >for with commercial applications is some sort of customer support (and > >nobody's figured out how to pirate that yet ;). Being able to see (and > >tweak!) the source code has come in handy here on a number of occasions, > >so I'm glad they haven't obfuscated it as well. > > This is veering a little off topic, but what the heck! I think you hit the > nail on the head John. Companies want support & someone to sue. But it > always struck me as hilarious that most software license agreements > disdain all responsibility for the software's performance. So yes, you > paid money to have someone to "hold responsible" and call when things break, > yet they specifically state they are not responsible.
Well, yes, but: A) You can't legally remove all liability for making a bad product. There have been laws made to specifically prevent that sort of thing. In pretty much the same way that you can't contractually sign away your right not to be murdered, you can't sign away your right to have someone's product do what it says on the box. B) Companies are motivated to help their customers not primarily by the law, but by the fact that they want to maintain existing customers and garner good publicity to gather more customers. If a company helps you get their product running, you're likely to continue using that product and tell your various mailing lists about it... on the other hand, if they're unhelpful, you're likely to find an alternative product and recommend that everyone else do the same. (This obviously fails to apply when you're the only game in town for certain applications; cf. Microsoft.) -- John Klein, Database Applications Developer | Omnia Mutantur, Systems Group - Harvard Law School | Nihil Interit
