Hi Does anyone have a copy of this dossier - i cannot find it in the Internet anymore.
http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 Best regards Ulrich -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Judah Scott Sent: 2. oktober 2009 01:39 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Smartnet pricing? If you consider support contracts as insurance then it sounds crazy to pay for the years you were not insured. An example is fire insurance: If you buy fire insurance 10 years after a home is built, State Farm isn't going to charge you for the first 10 years. A quick inspection to verify that all hardware is working may be required just to make sure there is no pre-contract damage. -J Scott On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Adam Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote: > e ninja wrote: > >> Nick, >> * >> inline...* >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 29/09/2009 19:20, e ninja wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> No it is not right. >>>> >>>> 1. Anybody that has paid for software, should *never* have to pay for >>>> bug >>>> fixes. See http://resources.multiven.com/dossier-3 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> That is an interesting wish-list. Have you considered what it would do >>> to >>> the price of software if vendors were made liable? >>> >>> >> >> * >> So vendors should not be made liable for software that people purchase? >> When >> was the last time you happily paid for a brand-new car that won't start? >> Software is always "new" because it can't break from over-use.* *Do >> Microsoft, Apple, HP etc. charge customers for bug fixes in their OS? * >> >> >>> I can't imagine the insurance premiums, and the gratuitous law suits. >>> Worse still, open source would be killed by it. >>> >>> >> * >> The bill of rights clearly refers to software that is paid for. Open >> source >> software is free.* >> >> > In the UK we have laws stating that products should be fit for the purpose > they're sold for (IANAL, though). Perhaps if it was tested in court > properly, it would mean bug fixes which would prevent the use of the > software safely would have to be provided free? I do, however, suspect that > EULAs try to strip away as much legal protection as possible from the > customer. > > I know that if I were to be held liable, I wouldn't ever release anything >>> or contribute anything to open source software. >>> >>> >>> >> * >> N/A. If you offer free software that nobody has to purchase, you are not >> liable for the product.* >> >> >> >>> 2. Forcing people to pay for a service they haven't used is >>> >>> >>>> extortion<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion>- a criminal act - >>>> seek legal counse >>>> >>> Legal counsel would probably argue that if you left your support >>> subscription lapse and then attempted to renew it several years later, >>> that >>> the reason for doing so was because of some failure outside the >>> manufacturer's control, and that you were pulling a fast one. >>> >>> >> * >> I'm sure as a smart guy, you know there is no wear-and-tear in software. >> Therefore, a user cannot 'break' software from over-use. All bugs in >> proprietary software are inherent from the manufacturer, whether you >> discover them from day 3 of purchase or 1000 years later.* >> >> > Think of hardware support as "insurance". The cost of providing the service > when it finally breaks is spread across the entire lifetime of the contract. > If someone has a device unsupported for 5 years, takes out support and it > dies 2 years later, the supplier has lost the vast majority of the money > they'd have used to pay for the replacement. > > Now, I don't think this should be the case for simple software upgrades, > but I can see why it's the case for hardware replacement contracts. (And I > can see why recert exists). > > adam. > > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
