Levi Bard wrote:
>>People should be really required to read The Windows or any other commercial
>>software EULA's. They make no promises their software will do what you
>>bought it for, and will take no responsibility for it's failings.
>>
>>
>
>I want to pick a nit here - the GPL (and I would guess most/all other
>"open" licenses) is like this too.
>
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
>Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
>posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
>official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
>
>
>
My point is that the commercial stuff makes no more promises than the
free stuff
and puts much more restrictions on the users.
You didn't give someone a few hundred dollars to use the free software.
Before Linux and even Windows I was a great fan of freeware and shareware.
A lot of that worked better than the commercial stuff.
Richard Smoot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:34:06 EDT