Sovereignty (was Re: [clug] MtM - companies using foss?)
paul.wayper at anu.edu.au
Fri Feb 23 01:53:27 GMT 2007
Alex Satrapa wrote:
> On 23/02/2007, at 10:05 , Mike Carden wrote:
>> The idea that a company shouldn't be beholden to a single vendor in
>> order to access and use their own data is a very important one for
>> Bill and for DeBortoli.
> This is becoming more and more important as we have software vendors
> looking to give themselves the right to turn off your software at whim.
> It's going to be cold comfort to find the vendor liable for damages
> when they accidentally disable the operating systems running your
> production line, resulting in hundreds of tonnes of produce spoiling
> and stalling your business for a month.
Pfah! In the Microsoft EULA, you specifically disclaimed them from any
damages arising from the use of their software, from their interaction
with you, and virtually anything else. You have a better chance of
stopping them disabling your equipment in the first place, than proving
them liable after the fact. This has been the way with most software
licenses, proprietary and open-source, basically because you never 'own'
the thing. When you buy a thing, you then gain specific ownership and
how you use it becomes your responsibility. Barring obvious things like
manufacturing problems and fitness for purpose, you're liable for what
happens when you use it, not the company.
But you almost never end up owning the software because that would allow
you to disassemble and reverse engineer it, for one.
More information about the linux