On Nov 25, 2003, at 18:27, Joachim Breitner wrote:
Ok, your point seems valid here, especially in private business and in isolated products (yet another text editor). But in this case, we are talking about something I need to make the hardware run. And though I didn't pay for the firmware, I payed for the hardware (here is our contract) and thus need the firmware. And along with the firmware theyhand out to me because I bought their hardware, they give me the promise(the GPL).
You probably bought a box marked as having Windows 98/ME/2000/XP support and maybe Mac support as well. I very much doubt it mentioned having GPL'd Linux drivers. If you weren't aware of it, its hard to see it being part of a contract, at least in any sane jurisdiction.
Now, you may of been aware of it from their web site, and made a purchase decision based on it. In that case, you're probably right: It would be considered part of the contract, and a court would award reasonable damages. I'd suspect that a court would award you your money back (plus possibly expenses). The furthest I can see a court going is ordering them not to refer to the drivers as GPL'd on their website any longer.
Assume you alter your example: I sell you my old computer. I say, if youwant, you can get an operating system for that computer for free. You take it. I give you the disk "as part of the system" (though not necessarily the same time) and then all promises made along this (itworks, you can get a second disk if your dogs eats this one, you can getthe source) are binding.
If you agreed to do that as part of the original purchase, then certainly. If not, it gets more murky.