Re: [Fsfe-uk] GPL licence untested, authors could lose their rights in UK

[Ian Lynch]

On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 12:02 +0100, Chris Croughton wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 06:49:11PM +0100, Alex Hudson wrote:
> 
> > 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 :/
> 
> It will?  So can I please get my money back if I buy a shrink-wrapped
> software package which proves to be not fit for the purpose for which it
> was sold to me?  Has anyone ever managed to get money back for such a
> claim from MS, for instance?

Not that exact claim, but in California customers did for being charged
for software that they didn't want that was pre-installed on the
computer. 

The issue with fit for purpose is that its subjective to a degree. You
could try a legal battle based on the fact that any operating system
with security holes is not fit for purpose but it would be expensive and
you have no certainty of winning. Such a judgement would also affect
GNU/Linux on the grounds that its not perfectly secure.

-- 
Ian Lynch
www.theINGOTs.org
www.opendocumentfellowship.org
www.schoolforge.org.uk