I have an slightly different perspective on this. I hope it will be a bit useful
Background:
I'm a senior developer for a consulting firm. I too have experience with DB/2, Oracle, Sybase, Adabase, and M$ SQL.
In the last few years of work I've been moving from the technical side of things to be
Hmmm...
I think this is a common fallacy. It's like arguing that if windoze crashes
and you lose important data then you have some sort of legal recourse
against Microsoft. Ever read one of their EULAs? $10 says that Oracle's
license grants them absolute immunity to any kind of damages claim.
-Original Message-
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 June 2002 08:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Tim Hart
Cc: Andrew Sullivan; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Support (was: Democracy and organisation)
Hmmm...
I think this is a common
Could very well be. As I said, I'm not a lawyer. I do know that depending upon the
laws in a region, EULAs can be proven to be legally invalid.
I do personally find it hard to believe that Oracle could be legally immune from *all*
damages claims. In practice proving fault could be very hard to
Tim,
If a catastrophic software failure results in a high percentage of
lost revenue, a corporation might be able to seek monetary
compensation from a commercial vendor. They could even be taken to
court - depending upon licensing, product descriptions, promises made
in product literature,
On Thursday, 27, 2002, at 10:07AM, Josh Berkus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or from a financial perspective: An enterprise MS SQL 2000 user can
expect to pay, under Licensing 6.0, about $10,000 - $20,000 a year in
licnesing fees -- *not including any support*. Just $2000-$5000 buys
you a
Is this sort of like Oracle guaranteeing its uncrackable, but as soon as
someone comes to them to prove it is, Oracle's response is but DBA didn't
enable the obscure security feature that can be found here, that is
disabled by default?
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Tim Hart wrote:
Could very well be.
