http://www.raiden.net/articles/linux...ellular_empire

Thought you guys might find this interesting since it affects NIT users as well.

We had a news item on a somewhat related topic on All About Symbian recently:

http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/news/...liance_We_.php

In a nutshell:

The Business Software Alliance is a trade body that represents very large software-related companies such as IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco etc.

The European Union wants to make software subject to the same consumer guarantees as hardware or any other retail product. That would mean that if software didn't work, you could just take it back to the shop and demand a refund (which currently you cannot legally demand, though many shops will voluntarily refund you anyway to maintain their reputation).

The BSA reaction was very very interesting:

"(Digital content) is contractually licensed to consumers and not sold."

Microsoft, Apple etc don't sell software?! Really?

Even more amusing was the claim by the game developer association TIGA that:

"If there is an onus on developers to have software that is 'near perfect' then it could stifle new ideas as people could end up just playing it safe,"

...does that fill you with confidence that software makers will make sure a product works properly before they ship it?

No wonder open source is doing so well, it's the only kind of software where the creators are honest about how reliable it is, so it's easier to judge whether to use it or not. For businesses assessments of reliability are absolutely essential, and of course reliability is an even more important factor in things like healthcare and medical research. People's lives may depend on software working properly.

The reason this situation exists is because the software publishers are not technically selling anything, so the laws regarding consumer rights don't apply to them. Technically they are lending you the rights to use the software, so the only legal way to get your money back on faulty software is to sue them for breach of contract, which very few consumers would know how to do.

The EU is basically doing the right thing by stopping software publishers wriggling out of their responsibilies to users, and the publishers and developers are whining that they shouldn't be forced to make sure their products work.

Hardware companies make products that are just as complex as software, yet hardware companies have managed to cope with consumer laws for decades. Why should software companies have an easier ride than hardware companies? Why should consumers buying software have less consumer protection than consumers buying hardware?

I think the EU needs to go a step further and ban the uses of the word "buy", "sell", "shop" and "store" unless consumers are actually being sold stuff. If someone is going to offer a restricted lease on a product, they should use the word "rent" or "lend" or "lease".

I work for a software company. When someone buys a product from us they get a time-limited warranty (at least several months, depending on the product, the price, and other things). After that they pay for fixes. Just like our hardware products really. Our software is specified to fulfill a set of requirements, and that's how to determine if there's a warranty issue or not.

As for OSS, it could be given away for free, or sold. A reason to sell it for money could be to provide a warranty, which could make it interesting for customers to actually pay for OSS.

That's very interesting. Can people actually buy stuff from you (in the legal sense of "buy"), or are they just "contractually licensing" it like the BSA said?


Obviously I don't know what your company's policy is, but according to the BBC article's example a game that cannot be finished is not grounds for a consumer getting their money back. Shops might choose to refund, but they're not obligated to do so.

That sounds like there's no outside set of legal standards that software has to adhere to, because a game that can't be completed due to a bug clearly isn't fit for purpose.


Yes indeed, in fact isn't that quite a common business model for OSS?

It would also sound very fair, if people are bothering to help you with free-of-charge software then they should be paid for the help. No pirate would disagree with that.

(OTOH there might be some companies who don't want things to work too well out of the box because it would mean less support income.)

I haven't actually studied what BSA has to say about this, but the answer is that again it depends a bit.. we do use licensing, but, depending on the product, it should really be seen more as a way to avoid buy-once/use-many. There's also time-limited licensing (often as a way for the customer to test stuff, or sometimes just to be able to run the software on one or more extra computers temporarily) - sometimes the temp licenses are at no extra cost. Then there are 'permanent' lincenses, which for all practical purposes means 'you bought the software. It's yours, although you still cannot use it on more than one computer at the time.'

I could go on with details but that's probably too much detail for this forum! :-)

Ya know, this is the exact reason why I support FOSS. They actually care about their users and their software, not how much they can fleece you for. -_-;;