On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 08:31:21PM -0400, Paul Davis wrote:
> it also strikes me as mostly bullshit, though i'd want to speak to a
> lawyer before concluding that completely. GPL'ed software is almost
> universally made available with no warranty. as a post on slashdot
> points out, Microsoft could be sued up the wazoo if it weren't for its
> "no warranty" clause, and it never has been. why broadcast2000 would
> be any different, given its similarly worded no-warranty clause, i
> don't know. the key question for a lawyer would be how much it would
> cost to establish the validity of the no-warranty clause.
There is a link in the discussion on this slashdot article to a story
to www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/19245.html
It seems to me that those hackers put quite a lot of money in this
project and hoped desperately to make some revenue. I could imagine
that they made some promises for their hardware/software product in
order to get customers...
Well I admit this is just speculation...
>
> as for fears about IP infringement, thats a different story
> altogether, and a lot more justified in the current climate. i just
> hope that i can take on any such challenge if it comes toward ardour
> ... i intend to try.
In germany an association was founded by a group of lawyers to help
clearing legal issues for free software, if someone is interested, I'd
dig for the contact.
I agree with you, that if there is a realistic chance to stand up against
this threat it should be taken though this is also a question of money
( so far with "everyone has equal rights" ). A promising approach seems
to be the case "Felten vs. RIAA", where it was reported that the RIAA
is getting seriously troubled about that case.
matthias
