Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Sep 1997 13:34:54 -0401 | From | Raul Miller <> | Subject | Re: Solaris 2.6 and Linux |
| |
Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote: > Sigh. It is a good idea, and I encourage you to pursue it. However, it > doesn't "solve" the problem. The manufacturer needs to contract with > you, which means they need to investigate whether you are legitimate > or not. They need to monitor whether the service you are providing is > of acceptable quality for them to be associated with (can't have you > dis'ing their customers). They need to have a plan for what happens if > you go out of business prior to their three year obligation. Etc.
To a large degree, these things are covered by existing product liability laws, and contract laws. In practice, most companies would do a brief check (make a few phone calls, maybe) then not worry about it unless problems cropped up.
Also, unless I've completely mis-read the GPL, when I offer such a service, I become liable for fulfilling it. [The company which provides the source needs to announce that that's how the source code becomes available, but unless there's something very fradulent going on their responsibility ends there.]
> It is entirely possible that the transaction costs involved with > outsourcing their obligation are higher than the cost of satisfying it > internally.
As the bulk of the transaction cost is the cost to make a decision, what you're really saying (now) is that in some companies it's too expensive to make decisions.
> Nothing comes free.
As do many other things...
-- Raul
| |