On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:18:54PM +0000, Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > Note that, in many jurisdictions, this is actually a legal > requirement. For example, this clause would be meaningless in the UK > because the vendor would be liable under SOGA (Sale Of Goods Act) > anyway.
...unless it was a business to business sale (as opposed to selling to a consumer). But I agree that the number of cases in which people are refusing to warrant the *installation media* (as opposed to the software) are likely to be pretty low in practice, even if the extent of the warranty is just "We'll replace any dodgy discs". (Though that in turn makes me wonder why Red Hat bother to insist on the point.) The issue is that it is placing a direct requirement on those vendors, regardless of what the local law might say, for the sake of one package out of c.20,000. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
