kurt@fluke.UUCP (Kurt Guntheroth) (12/24/85)
One of the things people object to in the new software law is the legitimization of the notion that software is an expression of an idea, line a book, and not a utilitarian tool, like a hammer. I want to know why people don't like this. Well obviously people are steamed because this allows software companies to disclaim liability, but isn't this reasonable? We all know it is impossible to debug software fully. It seems horribly dangerous to have to warrant such an item against consequential damages. Furthermore, software has much of the properties of a book. Its production and distribution is similar in many ways. It is protected by copyright. Its development is thought intensive. Software can easily be viewed as an expression. What we object to in licensing agreements is the restrictive terms. In a legal sense, licensees must accept any terms demanded by the licensor. The shrink wrap license just extends contract law to a mass market situation. The market must simply demand that license terms not be arbitrary or unduely restrictive. This is beginning to happen; look at the advertisements saying "Not Copy Protected". We must either recognize software as a new category of goods and find some middle ground of warranty, accept software as expression of ideas and live with license agreements, or find a way to insure software companies against the immense possible lawsuits resulting from the view of software as a tool. I see the second choice as simplest and sufficiently reasonable.