This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Gcc installation problem
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: dewar at gnat dot com (Robert Dewar)
- Cc: dank at kegel dot com,lfei at ecn dot purdue dot edu,mrs at apple dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:13:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: Gcc installation problem
- References: <20030819025711.ABC2EF290D@nile.gnat.com>
On Monday, August 18, 2003, at 10:57 PM, Robert Dewar wrote:
Of course, Robert has kindly sidestepped the issue of whether they
*can* validly give you no warranty. Which i guess is better than trying
to explain what "No warranty, to THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW" means in any particular set of circumstances.
It's an interesting topic for debate if GNU should be blamed for
software defects under GPL ---- my personally feeling is yes (at least
to a certain degree), if GPL takes the credit automatically for GNU,
shoud it do with responsibilities as well.
This is incomprehensible nonsense, the GPL is a license, it cannot take
credit or responsibilities for anything!
If you acquire software from a third party, you acquire some guarantees
and warranties. If there are defects you have recourse to these
If you acquire software with no warranty at all (as is the case for
but not all cases of acquiring software under the GPL), then there is
absolutely no issue of "blame". No warranty means no warranty!
Don't bother trying to figure it out without a lexis-nexis account and
8 billion hours to kill: Simple Googling for "no warranty" only shows
that nothing has any warranty anymore, except where it has to.