« New search engine for Microsoft? | Main | Who wants the online czar job? »
Microsoft/Linux partnership fails
It was a valiant last stand but the Linux Foundation and Microsoft's efforts to delay the American Law Institute's (ALI) ruling on software warranties have failed.
The two took the unusual step of joining forces at the last minute to try and thwart a clause in the ALI's Principles of the Law of Software Contracts - an influential legal guide handed out to US judges and other legal professionals. The clause basically states that the buyer has a de facto warranty that any commercial software they buy will work perfectly.
"The ALI adopted the Principles in a vote on May 19th," wrote Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel of intellectual property and licensing at Microsoft, in a company blog.
"We are disappointed that the ALI did not allow for additional input, and will continue to work with the Linux Foundation and others across the software industry to ensure that any application of the principles does not adversely impact software developers, the software industry or consumers."
How the two respond to this is going to prove very interesting. Both sides aren't keen on the definition.
Microsoft is, for obvious reasons, not wild about the prospect of a flood of legal cases under the new guidelines. It's impossible for any entity to write a perfect operating system with no flaws, particularly if you're supporting a myriad of older products, standards and security protocols.
If you're Linux then the case is more down to legal fees. While the guidance appears to exempt free software it's such a legal gray area, and an expensive worry for new firms. Is selling services for your software counted as free for example? Open source companies have reason to fear such murky waters in court.
Today's confirmation looks to be a classic case of the law trailing after reality. The judiciary is seldom trained in real world problems,particularly in IT, and the experts that examine cases are paid for by defence and prosecution services and often exaggerate for effect.
In a perfect world independent counsel would be taken from the best experts in the field to advise how to deal with legal minefields like this. Maybe the team behind the minesweepers doesn't have the best interests of their clients at heart?
We can only hope that the two sides see that their enemy's enemy is their friend.
Spanish
So, if it is for software, then why not for medical products also. Shouldn't our surgery be perfect, shouldn't our repairs work perfectly? Nothing is perfect, least of all our legal system. Should not our defenses be perfect, our judges perfect, and our results guaranteed? Should not the work of this institute be guaranteed perfect as well?
More insanity than legality here.
Posted by: Wandering | May 23, 2009 4:34 PM
My comment won't be particularly popular but let's face it, if you bought a car & the price included functionality that didn't work, would would return it & it would be fixed under warranty. What's so difficult for software engineers to understand here.
If the OS has major flaws & software won't run on it then it just shouldn't be included & buyers can make a choice that is better informed. If it works with certain hardware, basically generic or specific well-accepted proprietary hardware then this should be well-documented. In the case of M$ that means they have to test their software completely rather than pumping it out long before its ready date & using the general public to test their software.
Before making comments at me about GPL & Linux here, remember that most of the software is unpaid & is updated to deal with a specific issue & may not be a cross-the-board fix. Sometimes it is but before it becomes general user software it is tested on a knowing public that it isn't beta but alpha software.
With Microsoft the software is purchased & supposed to work but we've learnt to accept that there are issues that haven't been properly tested. Why is it that we put up with crap?
Posted by: Rex Alfie Lee | May 27, 2009 4:03 AM
For Wandering & the poorly thought out simile, consider that surgery is done by hand & once cut, some repairs cannot be made. In computing, the errors can be immediately repaired by backspace, delete or undo.
Posted by: Rex Alfie Lee | May 27, 2009 4:11 AM
If MS had to test Windows on every single possible hardware configuration itself, with only the help of a relatively small beta tester community, we'd still be waiting for Windows 98. The simple fact of the matter is that in order to have cheap PC's, the market has to have competition. Which means a plethora of products. No one can test every single hardware configuration, especially if some of it doesn't quite meet the specs. If you're that bothered, pay through the nose and get a mac.
Posted by: JH | May 29, 2009 12:27 PM
Who is the ALI? Where do they get off ruling on anything? The GPL is a contract. The ALI is not a party to that contract. The GPL is very clear: "...no warranty..". This so-called ruling is BS.
Posted by: Rolandl | June 4, 2009 1:28 AM