Slashdot Mirror
What's (Still) Wrong With UCITA
Grant Gross has an article at NewsForge outlining both changes being proposed by the The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to its version of UCITA (a model intended for adoption by the various state legislatures), and objections raised to the resulting language by Red Hat lawyer Carol Kunze. Among other things, Kunze points out that Free software projects could be effectively discouraged from releasing software if software producers are required to provide warranties -- imagine trying to provide warranties on all the packages available to Debian users, for instance, or every bit of software included with Mandrake Linux.
> required to provide warranties
Free projects should just copy Microsoft's license which, by the time it is done excluding things, provides nothing to the end user.
AFAIK, most software is without warranty. Even windows. Nobody provides warranties. If this comes into force, it will basically kill the software industry, wether open-source or closed source.
Software can never be without problems.
Just imagine half the population putting lawsuits! Law will have to be outsourced mebbe!
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
I don't agree with the argument in the article that commercially-packaged Free Software being sold alongside other commercial software should have to abide by the same warranty obligation of commercial software (which is essentially worthless at the 90-day limit EULAs set, but that's beside the point.) Actually, this type of restriction would seem to put a damper on massive bundling of free/cheap software as well as game companies dumping old games in the bargain bins, as warranty obligations can get pretty expensive. This could use a bit of rethinking.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Perhaps this could work in our favor;
:)
By the time you have read this warrenty, or installed the product, your warrenty is null and void. You could call us, but we won't pick up the phone.
It's almost as good as Microsoft's
Tibbon
tibbon.com
Amend the UCITA so that all software sold is required either:
- to provide a warranty, or
- to provide full open access to the source code so the user may modify it as they see fit.
completely at the pleasure of the software author or vendor."Provided by the management for your protection."
...in particular:
"And software distributed for free would still be required under UCITA to carry a warranty if there's a charge for installation services or an accompanying maintenance contract."
You take money to install/maintain it, you provide a warrantee. I like the sound of that; otherwise you could be any old chump just taking peoples money.
Note also that:
"the new UCITA would exempt from warranty an Open Source product that was sold for the cost of the media it was on, such as a $3 Linux CD set."
Which again makes perfect sense. Where it gets hazy is when 'free' software is sold for a cost above media but obviously below the amount required for maintenance; this will be a tough thing to iron out.
> And software distributed for free would still
> be required under UCITA to carry a warranty if
> there's a charge for installation services or
> an accompanying maintenance contract.
That seems pretty reasonable. If I agree to install open source software to do X and charge you for it and the software doesn't do X I'm in breach.
That doesn't effect open source it effects pay distributions which makes claims. The article says as much, "One is an acknowledgment that a notice license -- such as the GPL or BSD licenses -- is not governed by UCITA, as opposed to contractual licenses".
In any case the worse that UCITA has ever had is "Implied warranty of merchantability. An implied obligation that a computer program will be fit for the ordinary purposes for which it is used. UCITA makes this warranty applicable to all computer programs, thus expanding the scope to software currently governed by common law which does not have this warranty." This is a clarification of the law. For example if SAMBA releases a beta version it wouldn't be covered because beta software's common use is to help find bugs and allow for layored developement in the future release version. If SAMBA released a release version for free it wouldn't be covered. If RedHat said on their box "the new SAMBA 3 will allow you to add a Linux box to a Windows 2000 domain" then SAMBA 3 as shipped by RedHat would need to provide that functionality. If RedHat is bothering to check out SAMBA 3 then they can't make claims about its functionality when the sell the distribution instead they can say, "The package includes a functional version of Samba 3, the Samba 3 group claims this allow you to add a Linux box to a Windows 2000 domain" which is probably a more accurete description of their state of knowledge at the time the distribution is released. The net effect of this is that paid distributions can't engage in false advertising. I don't know any that really do though some are a bit careless in their language. This may be a good thing for Open Source as it will require distributions to clearly describe what they do and what they don't do.
Idemnify authors of public domain information against civil legal threat arising from the work itself or derivative works.
That's why the UCB, MIT, and CMU Licenses exist in the first place, rather than the code being placed in the public domain.
If you want to control your code after the fact, fine: accept the liablity associated with doing that, as your cost for the payment of being granted that control. The sole reason most University developed code in these cases is not in the public domain is that a license was required to obtainlegal indemnification.
I don't think this would keep people from releasing under the (L)GPL or Artistic License or MPL, or SCSL, etc., if they felt the control they got by affixing the license was worth the cost.
-- Terry
If lawyers are suing fast food chains for cauing obesity health problems, it is only a matter of time before they latch onto the software industry. MicroSoft has $38 billion in cash tempting them.
Easy. Let the warranty state that if the users are not satisfied with the free software product, they will get their money back.
My opinion? See above.
At first I thought that nobody would win with software warranties, but then I realized that Microsoft would. They could weather the legal storm, whereas Linux couldn't.
In reality though, there could be no warranty. It would be so jam-packed with disclaimers it would basically be useless. Bumper to bumper warranty my ass - read the fine print.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Ok, but I have a question then: how much of the Windows OS do you actually pay for? If MS says they're only charging for kernel32.dll and everything else that installs with it (IE, notepad, solitaire, all other DLLs...) is a "free bonus", what recourse does anyone have? Unless you can *prove* that the damage was done by the kernel itself. It would be easier to make claims on things like Office, I suppose.
do not read this line twice.
The difference is this. If you're going to release a product, keep the source secret and not allow the user to help themselves or provide reliable updates on a timely scale you should be responsible.
Open source software has nothing to gain from releasal (well maybe a lil fame and recognition) but no financial reward. It is important to note that software should be allowed to be given away with warranties proportionate to what you paid for it. You pay nothing you get nothing. In the case of microsoft you're paying 500+ dollars for the software and it doesnt work right. The total cost for a legit ms office installation for the small-business man is almost 1500 dollars for windows xp pro, office xp pro and other productivity tools such as quickbooks and quicken. This is MORE then the hardware cost which is currently supported under warranty for 12 months and with driver updates for as long as there are devices in use. i've got ati cards with current drivers for xp that were made in 90something.
With that said with the support based business models of redhat software etc SHOULD be liable for support they provide.
If redhat comes in and sets up an opensource installation for $ they should be allowed to setup reasonable restrictions on the user and at the same time be responsible when things break.
The excuse "the user must of screwed it up" doesnt go very far with me.
This would give the major distributions that use this revenue model incentives to contribute to auto-updating programs and better out-of-the-box setups such that _their_ installers could do the job faster better and cheaper.
In the true opensource for the community and the greater good of all sense there should be _NO_ liabilities for anything for any reason whatsoever.
BUT when you make money off something you are providing a promised service for a fee. You should be accountable that said service works as advertises and doesnt constantly break down modify its agreement with you or spy on you!
Punitive damages should be awarded to any company that gets rooted/exploited etc from a professionally setup system. This would increase the revenue from big businesses getting what they need from their products. The line just get joe in the IT department to setup the oracle/iis server should go away for large corporations and they should be (incentively) forced to contract to the software vendor for the product.
In this case opensource software gets revenue, support and businesses get the liability protection they so desire but currently cant get.
In conclusion. If theres money to be lost by microsoft, redhat or whoever they will be given a very powerful incentive to make better updating software and keep installations running correctly. But at the same time if you didnt pay for it dont expect any support liability protection or guarantees. The idea of some idiot mcse running companies servers really needs to go. Liability protection WOULD make this happen and make better software at the same time.
$0.02.
P.S. Dont bother flaming this reply with some stupid non-witty response I wont care. However if you want to reply in an informed and intelligent matter I will respond.
This law is NOT about the major distributors, it is about OPPRESSION --it is about keeping the best and brightest from being able to create something and SHARE it. In the end, that will FORCE us to buy stuff instead of taking the risk of downloading free software. I use Linux and several free apps and I do this by accepting the RISK of the software that is why I have to have a risk mitigation plan in place before I put the free software into production. I get to use both MS and Linux, both require a risk mitigation plan and MS is more likely to fail. I have never been able to recoop any money spent on the time it has taken me to fix my NT blue screen of death.
This law is effectively an attempt to force free software industry to become a FOR PROFIT ONLY or NOTHING AT ALL industry and this is constitutionally WRONG because it is taking away the freedom to create, share and communicate openly with other people.
Do you remember the days when hacking was cool? The days when if you found a security breach in an administrator's network and could call that admin and say, "Dude I found this gaping hole in your network."...and the admin would ask, "do you know how to fix it?" or "thanks I didn't know about that?" That was the days before the media got involved and the security task forces got involved. Realize WE CANNOT do that anymore and what has suffered? computer SECURITY because we cannot talk and share things anymore. If we allow this law to be passed it WILL in time take our communication away too that is its intent.
2 Ending questions:
1. do you hold MS financially liable when your server farm goes down because of something that MS forgot to fix? Hell no you don't, you are Eternally greatful that your shit works again.
2. Has MS been held financially liable for any thing that has blown up in their OS? Not to my knowledge, the only financial liablity they have is from trying to create a monopoly which will only grow stronger if this law if passed that takes away the openess of our community.
The real problem with software is that it interacts with other software in a complex and often difficult to understand way. For example, if I discover that Product A managed to corrupt my hard drive and erase all my work, should the manufactorer of Product A be liable?
However, what if the reason Product A corrupted my hard drive was because Product B overwrote some of the libraries that Product A uses, causing an incompatibility. Now who is liable? The maker of Product A or Product B?
But for added fun, let's say that the libraries were part of Product C that both Product A and Product B use. And Product B overwrote Product A's libraries because it had a newer version of the software that supposedly had bug fixes in it. Now who is liable? Manufactorer A, B, or C?
For added fun, let's assume that the incompatibility was actually caused due to a bug in the BIOS, that caused data corruption when sending data to the harddrive. Now who's liable? A, B, C, or D - the manufactorer of the BIOS?
But we're not done yet. It turns out that the command the BIOS sends to the harddrive is invalid, and should cause the hard drive to signal an error back to the BIOS. But because of buggy firmware, it instead writes random data to a random location. So a combination of A, B, C, D, and a hard drive with buggy firmware by E is what caused the data corruption. So when A, B, C, D, and then E - the buggy harddrive - combine, your data can be corrupted.
So - who's responsible? Is A responsible - they bug tested their software with Version 1 of Product C. But Product B installed Version 2 of Product C. So is Product A or Product B the actual culprit? Or is Version 2 of Product C responsible? But then again, Product C only caused a bug in the BIOS - which gave a command to the harddrive that should have caused an error but instead caused data to be written in the wrong fashion.
The real problem with software is that frequently bugs can come up when there are weird combinations of hardware and software that cause software to enter into states that the manufactorer never expected. Plus when you throw viruses and programs that alter the way fundamental components of the OS interact (think drivers, debuggers, or special programs like display "enhancers" or firewalls), the total number of combinations that might cause damage rise incredibly, and it become infeasable to anticipate and test every combination.
Especially when it works in the test lab with 100% accuracy, because the test lab does not have the fatal combination of software and hardware that eventually causes damage. So even though every manufactorer tested their component to work assuming everything else was working properly, when one thing turns out to generate a slightly wrong command, a whole chain of incompatibilies can result. Making software warranties a huge blame game.
Software warranties are really only feasable for a given configuration, with the user understanding that installing new software or hardware and making certain configuration changes will void the warranty. Which makes them next to useless anyway. And if the software manufactorer releases a patch to fix a known issue, are they liable for the issue anymore if people do not install the patch within a reasonable amount of time?
Responsibility is fine, but sometimes responsibility just means providing a fix and telling people of known issues. It is impossible to warrant against every possible condition. This is why most warranties specifically disclaim liability if the owner uses the device in a fashion that is unintended - the manufactorer cannot warrant the device "work" in a scenario that it is not supposed to be used in.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
We're talking about changes to UCITA here. But do not forget, UCITA was written by Commercial Software Comapanies for Commercial Software Companies.
... its all up to them) to continue to use their software. Oh and those audit letters, with self help in UCITA they would just shut everything down first and then force you pay whatever they thought was the right amount.
They are trying to make shrinkwrap licenses enforcable with UCITA. They are trying to get provisions to provide self-help (read turning off your software) in cases of licensing disputes. Red Hat is just saying that they don't want shrinkwap licenses like everyone else.
UCITA is designed so that Microsoft can pop up a window to charge your credit card every (year, month, week
Even without self help, UCITA will still fully enable enforcement of shrinkwrap licenses (all of which will disavow warranties), and their randomly changable nature.
UCITA is not about consumer protection, its about complete and total abuse of consumers.
Red Hat is arguing against the UCITA, not for it. The UCITA, in case for forget, put legal muscle behind unenforceables such as MS-EULA's saying you give full control of your hardware to microsoft.
The UCITA is heavily ANTI-consumer, and PRO-corporate. It will not benefit consumers, it will injure them. If you recall, RedHat doesnt put crap like this in EULA's, and you can use RedHat software *without* accepting to or agreeing with the GPL or BSD. (Only redistribution requires that)
You say that Red Hat is asking for welfare: bullshit. At worst they are asking for the playing field not to be tilted against them anymore than it already is. We consumers will bear the cost if we dont listen to them.
If you think the UCITA is good for the typical software user, then you are deluded.
Isn't the "fairness" to different businesses. It's the lawyer friendly addition of more legalease.
In actual application, UCITA attempts to create a "default" license model under which all software is sold. Then it creates mechanisms companies can use to over-ride the defaults. One of these mechanisms happens to be "click-wrapped" agreements. This really just means more legalese for everyone, and which ever companies hire lots of lawyers benefit. (Redhat included)
If the courts really do feel that software companies haven't been responsible, they should hit the co's with fines based on what was charged for faulty product. This is how consumer law has worked for many years. If you sell something and the consumer becomes dissatisfied, you'll probably have to give those dissatisfied a refund.
Perhaps what is really missing in UCITA is a gaurantee that legal liablity for software producers won't exceed price charged, unless extra warranties were offered. Also, that when not sold at retail some risk should remain with the consumer.
If RedHat really is worried about being charged more than they were paid in liability fees, then I commend them for knowing they should be scared, and I hope they get better at stating their case.
If instead, they are worried that they may have to give a refund on copies of their software where customers are legitimately dissatisfied, then I hope they quit whining, and behave like a real business.