Hi people,<br><br>Check out these articles: &lt;<a href="http://www.freelock.com/blog/john-locke/1/software-be-bug-free-guaranteed">http://www.freelock.com/blog/john-locke/1/software-be-bug-free-guaranteed</a>&gt;; &lt;<a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/microsoft-linux-foundation-hate-on-ali-contract-guidelines.ars">http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/05/microsoft-linux-foundation-hate-on-ali-contract-guidelines.ars</a>&gt;; and &lt;<a href="http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/?p=240">http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.com/blog/?p=240</a>&gt;; which talk about proposals by the American Law Institute (in their &quot;Principles of the Law of Software Contracts&quot; project) to, in essence, force new &quot;non-disclaimable&quot; warranties on software licensors (and arguably, also on contributors).<br>

<br>The warranties would, in addition to making software licensors (and developers?) liable for infringing on
patents and copyrights, also make them liable for material defects in the software.<br><br>Is this a tsunami in the offing?<br><br>Joseph.<br><br>NB: The Principles of the Law of Software Contracts project &quot;presents legal
principles to guide courts in deciding disputes involving transactions
in software and to guide those drafting software contracts&quot;:
&lt;<a href="http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.proj_ip&amp;projectid=9">http://www.ali.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=projects.proj_ip&amp;projectid=9</a>&gt;.<br>