Thanks John and Larry. Now I am starting to see. That's very frightening to think about, but I still find it hard to believe.
With the manufacturer / retailer situation, the manufacturer got paid for the goods, and there was a chain of contracts even though there was no privity between manufacturer and final recipient. Does all of this apply equally to my situation, where I am making the software available purely as a gift? (I realize others among us are selling their open source products, and I have no problem with that, but that's not what I'm doing.) -- Forget about privity for a second. That's a red herring. My cat just strolled in, so now I have other things on my mind: Someone gave this cat to me; she was "free to a good home". They said she was healthy, and it turned out they were right. If I found that she had some health problem when I got her, could I have expected the original owners to pay the veterinary expenses based on some theory of implied warranty? If I had decided to return her, could I have expected to be compensated some amount so I could buy a replacement cat from Pets R Us? "Don't be stupid, Bruce, of course not," says my conscience. Does the law disagree? Also, does it give a different answer for software than for cats? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'John Cowan'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Bruce Dodson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'David Johnson'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 8:15 PM Subject: RE: a proposed change to the OSD > > That used to be the law. But people got tired of buying > > useless and/or dangerously defective products from stores and > > getting this answer: > > > > Store: I had no way to know it was useless/defective: try the > > manufacturer. > > Manufacturer: You and we have no privity of contract: try the store. > > > > So after enough people got angry enough, the law was changed. > > Now manufacturers are liable for the useless/defective > > products they produce *to the ultimate consumer*, under a > > fiction of "implied warranty": the manufacturer is deemed to > > have issued such a warranty whether he has or not. The > > warranty disclaimer is an attempt to dispose of this > > obligation, and 1) it may not work at all in some > > jurisdictions, and 2) it surely will not work unless the > > manufacturer SHOUTS it at the consumer in an unmistakable place. > > Yes, what John says is true. And so we find ourselves in a situation > where manufactured products intended for consumers are covered by > mandatory warranties under federal law. (Even some products that > contain Linux software in them!) And there are effective product > liability and consumer protection statutes in nearly all states that > make manufacturers and distributors liable for the crap they foist on > the unsuspecting public. > > Someday UCITA may do these things for software. Do you want that? Do > you want the open source community to try to influence the shaping of > laws like UCITA? > > For those who fantasize a different kind of world, let's make it so. In > the meantime, we're stuck with contract law the way it is. Or at least > the way it is in the US. How is it different in other countries? -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
