Topic: EC considering software liability

[Nemesis]

Link to full article

Software companies could be held responsible for the security and efficacy of their products, if a new European Commission consumer protection proposal becomes law.

According to Mingorance, the proposed regulatory extension would cover all software, including beta products, and would cover both proprietary and open-source software.

Right now, under the current EU Sales and Guarantees Directive, physical products are expected to carry a guarantee of two years. Extending those terms to software would have the effect of limiting customer choice, as contract terms would have to be extended to a minimum of two years, Mingorance added.

[marstone]

more reasons not to sell software to EU countries.

[Nemesis]

You pay for a toaster and it only toasts one side of the bread you take the toaster back and get one that works or your money back.

You buy a program whose installer does not work though you have the requirements listed on the box (been there) and you can't take it back and get a working copy or your money back.

Why the difference? 

Why shouldn't software makers be expected to provide software that actually does what it says it does?  When they don't why shouldn't you have recourse for restitution?

[marstone]

You pay for a toaster and it only toasts one side of the bread you take the toaster back and get one that works or your money back.

You buy a program whose installer does not work though you have the requirements listed on the box (been there) and you can't take it back and get a working copy or your money back.

Why the difference? 

Why shouldn't software makers be expected to provide software that actually does what it says it does?  When they don't why shouldn't you have recourse for restitution?

problem in general I see is requiring a two years for the program to work proper.  With the rate that windows likes to change itself around how can you say you will be compatible (for sure) with whatever happens to an operating system you don't personally control.

Yes it you buy a software package and it doesn't load right, or run.  It should be replaced or your money back.  But if it worked for two years and then quit, obviously it isn't the software itself.

[Nemesis]

Yes it you buy a software package and it doesn't load right, or run.  It should be replaced or your money back.  But if it worked for two years and then quit, obviously it isn't the software itself.

Actually software can work for a time and then quit.  Y2K or "activation" software like Windows XP are two examples. 

problem in general I see is requiring a two years for the program to work proper.  With the rate that windows likes to change itself around how can you say you will be compatible (for sure) with whatever happens to an operating system you don't personally control.

Then Microsoft would be liable for their patches disabling software (like I found a DX9 patch caused their own Dungeon Seige to blue screen). 

[marstone]

well, Y2K wouldn't normally have stopped software from working.  It just might have made it run odd because it would have the wrong date.  Agree that was something that never should have been a problem, programming friends of mine and myself were talking about that problem back in the early '80.  That was buisness who didn't want to spend more money to change software when it would have been cheaper, then rushing at the deadline.

Activation software 'product of Satan' shouldn't be around in the first place.

As for if it is the operating system making itself incompatable and it being MS's fault.  It shouldn't fall on them to be forced to be compatible to the stone age (and two years is almost that now adays).  With all the different companies making software that work with, around, and sometimes against each other you can't expect years down the road to force changes.

You will start to force when software is put out instead of it saying you need Win7 or newer to run this software it will say, you need Win7 build 24 rev 18 only.  those poor little labels are going to get filled up with specific information for what is needed to run it, instead of the general system.

I believe companies should be responsible for what they put out.  It should work as they say.  You should get what you pay for.  But heck, enforce the rules that are out there.  We don't need more constraints.  Make the software companies follow the same rules for warrenty as other companies (get rid of EULA's make a good contract)

[Nemesis]

well, Y2K wouldn't normally have stopped software from working.  It just might have made it run odd because it would have the wrong date.  Agree that was something that never should have been a problem, programming friends of mine and myself were talking about that problem back in the early '80.  That was buisness who didn't want to spend more money to change software when it would have been cheaper, then rushing at the deadline.

If it does not do what it was supposed to do due to a Y2K like error (or any time based error) then it is NOT working.

As for if it is the operating system making itself incompatable and it being MS's fault.  It shouldn't fall on them to be forced to be compatible to the stone age (and two years is almost that now adays).  With all the different companies making software that work with, around, and sometimes against each other you can't expect years down the road to force changes.

A particular version (for example XP) should be compatible with itself.  If they break compatibility they should release it as a new version.  Why should the customer have to either reinstall their OS to get back to a version that is compatible with their software (major expense in time if nothing else) or have to replace all the newly blocked software at their own expense and then perhaps have to do it all over next month?

You will start to force when software is put out instead of it saying you need Win7 or newer to run this software it will say, you need Win7 build 24 rev 18 only.  those poor little labels are going to get filled up with specific information for what is needed to run it, instead of the general system.

Again if a patch breaks compatibility with in a version level then it is faulty.  Any patching that breaks the software should be a new release not just a patch. 

I believe companies should be responsible for what they put out.  It should work as they say.  You should get what you pay for.  But heck, enforce the rules that are out there.  We don't need more constraints.  Make the software companies follow the same rules for warrenty as other companies (get rid of EULA's make a good contract)

The problem that this article is addressing is that software escapes from warranty rules due to a loophole in the law that they want to correct.  So it appears that after all your objections you actually are in agreement with the proposal.