brainwagon

ZDNet UK is currently running a
story about the comments
made by Microsoft VP Steve Ballmer about Microsoft. This provoked the usual backlash of
anti-Microsoft sentiment on weblogs like
Slashdot, but one interesting point was raised.

The ZDNet article says:

Asked by one lateral-thinking MVP whether Microsoft planned to offer applications software on Linux, Ballmer said no. “We do not anticipate offering software on Linux. Nobody pays for software on Linux.” Even StarOffice, sold by Sun, was originally a free product, he said. And IBM, arguably the No. 1 player in the Linux market, promotes Linux to big users, but does not actually sell Linux: “It’s weird! IBM says ‘Hey British Aerospace! Buy Linux…. From SuSE.”

The big issue there, he said, was a reluctance to accept legal liability for open-source software.

The reason that I find this interesting is of course that Microsoft doesn’t assume any legal liability for damages caused by the use of their software either. From the WinXP EULA:

13. EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL
AND CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE
MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE
LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS
SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL,
INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES
FOR LOSS OF PROFITS OR CONFIDENTIAL OR
OTHER INFORMATION, FOR BUSINESS
INTERRUPTION, FOR PERSONAL INJURY, FOR
LOSS OF PRIVACY, FOR FAILURE TO MEET
ANY DUTY INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF
REASONABLE CARE, FOR NEGLIGENCE, AND
FOR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS
WHATSOEVER) ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY
WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY
TO USE THE PRODUCT, THE PROVISION OF
OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR OTHER
SERVICES, INFORMATON, SOFTWARE, AND
RELATED CONTENT THROUGH THE PRODUCT OR
OTHERWISE ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE
PRODUCT, OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN
CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS
EULA, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF THE FAULT,
TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT OR BREACH
OF WARRANTY OF MICROSOFT OR ANY
SUPPLIER, AND EVEN IF MICROSOFT OR ANY
SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

I wonder what legal liability Ballmer is actually talking about, since this basically says that if WinXP blows up and destroys your house, even if their programmers put code that they knew could result
in the loss of your house, that they are not liable for damages. It is true that Microsoft is at least
a sue-able entity, but good luck in actually succeeding.

Microsoft offers precisely the same legal liability as any Linux distribution: none.