wh@houxz.UUCP (W.HEINMILLER) (08/13/84)
[This is not a bug! This is a feature which helpfully removes opening lines,
which everyone knows are usually worthless anyway!]
The simplicity of Modula Corporation's license statement is nice, but it is
still not 'simple' enough for me. My question: If the software really has no
value, as they claim, why are they so concerned about people making copies of
it? The other question: Who decides if the software is 'defective'? ("That's
not a bug, that's a feature!")
I don't have any suggestion for solving the first question, but I do have a
suggestion that would satisfy me for the second question.
I would like the statement to say instead, that if you decide the software
doesn't do what you want it to do, you can return it for a full refund within
30 days, and if it ever fails to do what the supplier claims it can do, you can
return it for a full refund, or the supplier will supply a corrected version.
(Other than media wear.)
However, as with most 'licenses' or 'warranties' for consumer products, the
legal effect is to deny the customer's rights while ensuring the seller's
rights.
Wayne Heinmiller Bell Communications Research
houxz!wh Freehold, NJ