Microsoft and the Linux Foundation are both opposing a law group's proposal that would create an implied warranty that software products ship with no material defects.
The two joined forces on a letter to the American Law Institute taking issue with its proposal. The Linux group and software maker believe the proposal could do more harm than good.
"While the principles reflect a lot of hard work and thought by the ALI, Microsoft and the Linux Foundation believe that certain provisions do not reflect existing law and could disrupt the well-functioning software market for businesses and consumers, as well as create uncertainty for software developers," Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a blog posting.
The ALI is meeting in Washington this week and is scheduled to take up the issue.
Microsoft and the Linux Foundation are not the only ones against this. As noted by ZDNet.com's Mary Jo Foley, the University of Houston's Raymond Nimmer also wrote a biting critique of the ALI proposal.
Linux Foundation chief Jim Zemlin noted in a blog that its partnership with Microsoft makes for strange bedfellows. But, he said, the proposed legal standard would hurt open source and commercial software makers alike.
"The principles outlined by the ALI interfere with the natural operation of open-source licences and commercial licences as well by creating implied warranties that could result in a tremendous amount of unnecessary litigation, which would undermine the sharing of technology," Zemlin wrote.
Read this
Comment: Ten top Linux and open-source developer tools
Linux may be a great development environment, but you still need the right tools to exploit it to the full...
Gutierrez also noted that Microsoft and its partner in this effort do not necessarily see eye to eye on everything.
"The mere fact that the Linux Foundation and Microsoft are joining forces may be viewed by some as remarkable, given that our differences receive far more public attention than when our interests converge," Gutierrez said. "Our industry is diverse and sometimes contentious, but if nothing else unites us it is that we all believe in the power of software."
Gutierrez held out an olive branch, of sorts. "I hope that this represents just one of many opportunities to collaborate with the Linux Foundation and others going forward," he said. "We have a lot more we can do together."
The joint letter comes just a couple short months after Microsoft, for the first time, sued a company over its implementation of the Linux kernel. The company eventually settled with TomTom, but the move has created uncertainty over whether Microsoft intends to take legal action against Linux vendors that refuse to take a licence to Microsoft's patents.
Talkback
I agree with the Linux Foundation's stance as things currently stand. However, if the law was that the purchaser of a packaged software product had legal recourse against the organisation publishing the software, that might at least go some way to redressing the balance between between paid for a free software. As it stands you have the same rights buying the software as you do downloading free software, in fact, some would argue less. So what is the consumer buying?
If some of these arrogant corporates who sell sub standard products and then just shrug when people complain had to back their marketing gloss up, maybe they would try a little harder to release decent stuff.
Also, this way, the developers would not be affected and open source would be completely immune, except, again, where the software is sold as package and then the onus is on the organisation selling the software to properly test the variant they are releasing.
If they limit any claims to the amount the customer paid for the software, then it would not 'kill' any developer or software company.
At the same time it would put a little pressure on software quality.
If a lot of customers had the SAME quality problem with the software, it is likely that the quality would have more of a priority.
Microsoft and Linux have a point. An implied warranty would visit a heavy onus on software suppliers to prove their software was fit for purpose. Apparent failure of software could arise from the buyers' defective hardware, incompetence and clashes with little known software. It is fairer that the onus of proving the software is faulty remains with the buyers, rather than the suppliers trying to prove a negative in unknown territory.