[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LCC and blobs

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 12:15:31PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Blars Blarson <blarson@blars.org> wrote:
> > In article <[🔎] E1CdHw3-0003QG-00@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 
> > mgarrett@chiark.greenend.org.uk writes:
> >>How does moving firmware from the disk to the hardware (therefore making
> >>it harder to modify and more expensive) further the cause of free
> >>software?
> > 
> > It makes it covered by the hardware manufacturers warentee.  If it is
> > faulty, you can return it for repair or refund.
> Under UK law, I have the same rights with faulty software. Do other
> jurisdictions actually treat software and hardware differently in this
> respect?

UK law is abnormal in that we blast through those 'ABSOLUTELY NO
WARRANTY' clauses in software licenses with the Sale of Goods act. In
most places those hold (because the 'licensed, not sold' thing lets
them specify almost arbitrary terms). We're considered unusually
socialist for holding people responsible for selling goods as
advertised (rather than considering it 'reasonable' to sell a box
containing a piece of paper that says it's not their fault if the
software doesn't work, or indeed completely fails to be inside the
expensive box when you open it).

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: