|
 |
|
[ Thanks to Kelly McNeill for this link. ] "It is bad for consumers!" "It allows businesses that sell software to make license agreements that say, essentially, "This software doesn't even have to perform as advertised." And because you click on some button that says, "I accept", or some such phrase, you have diminished legal recourse under UCITA if it does not perform as advertised. Here's a challenge: try to find a commercial software package without such disclaimers. But you have increased legal recourse under UCITA, if your next door neighbor writes some code to help you with some task, and he fails to get you to agree to a license with such disclaimers, and the code has some bug. UCITA does not encourage software makers to write better software! It encourages them to write better license agreements (for themselves)...." "It is bad for the software industry!" "(not in terms of making them money, but in terms of promoting quality products) There is a monopolistic company that sells buggy software. This company's software licenses would be enforced under UCITA. Software that includes a license called, GPL, is a competitor to this monopoly in the market in which it has been so judged. The GPL would not be enforced under UCITA. Indeed, it seems to me, the language of UCITA attempts to invalidate the GPL. If you don't like or can't understand sarcasm skip the next sentence. Just what we need, legislation so software companies can make more money with worse products. If you don't like or can't understand rhetorical questions skip the next sentence. Who could possibly gain any unfair advantage by enforcing the licenses of a monopoly and, at least, refusing to enforce the licenses of a competitor? Who needs competition?" Related Stories:
 
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
| All times are recorded in UTC. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Powered by Linux, Apache and PHP 
Legal Notices, Licensing, Permissions, Privacy Policy.
Whitepapers and eBooks
Webcasts
|
