On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 18:39 +0100, Sam Liddicott wrote: > I remember my old CPM documentation used to say very clearly > THIS SOFWTARE IS LICENSED, NOT SOLD > > Perhaps we need to do that a bit more.
That's what we're effectively doing already, to be honest. Ian's exactly right, too - if a Judge could imply title or warranty into a free software licence, he could do exactly the same to a proprietary licence. Which makes me think it would be extremely unlikely to happen. I'm pretty sure, though, in the case where software is sold (or, a software licence - I don't think the judiciary will care) it will need to meet the usual standards (e.g., be fit for purpose). I don't think those standards are terribly high though :/ Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
