Today I decided to run Windows Update on my development server, which is running Windows 2000. The usual assortment of security updates needed to be applied. While these were downloading and installing, I decided to entertain myself by reading the Terms of Use for Windows Update. I found the following in there:
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to say "Use at your own risk" - unless otherwise noted in the License Agreement. The fun part is that when you look at these License Agreements, they almost all have very similar statements. I believe the most I've seen that would be guaranteed, is the cost of the media a replacement would need to be shipped on - which translates to about $5.
The problem with these End User License Agreements (EULAs), is that they have to be accepted BEFORE you install the software. In some cases, simply opening the package the software comes in forces you to accept the license agreement - even though you couldn't read the agreement because it was in the package you had to open. So the problem is, how do you know the software will do what you want it to do, and if it will work properly on your system, without accepting the license in the first place? Because once you accept the license, you have very limited options on what to do with the software. You can't return it unless it is clearly defective. Even then you might not be able to.
But, for the moment, lets assume you purposely accept the license agreement for the software, and that you have taken the time to actually read the license agreement (I don't know anyone who bothers reading click through or shrink wrapped licenses from start to finish). What guarantees are given to you? Usually none. Sure, some licenses state that you can get a refund if you follow a specific procedure, or in a very specific circumstance. But, a license is NOT about guarantees or warranties. No, it is about restricting what YOU are allowed to do with the software. The licenses remove your rights, in a mostly legal manner.
At their heart though, when you read between the lines, a license typically states "Use at your own risk". So the manufacturer is basically saying you have paid for a license to use the software, but don't blame them if it doesn't work as expected.
Now, this isn't as bad as it may seem at first. And I even agree with the sentiment to a certain extent. Afterall, aren't I responsible for my own computer? Aren't I the one who may have done something to it to make it not work quite as expected? How can a manufacturer guarantee their software will work in every single possible situation? No, I can understand the sentiment. But, I do have a problem with the perception that a commercial license is different than an open source license, in this regard.
You see, open source is nothing more than people sharing ideas and work. You get to use someone else's work on your computer,or in your environment. If I borrowed a chain saw from my neighbor, and then used that saw to cut down my house, could I sue my neighbor for how I used the saw? Probably not. Though in today's world, there might be an argument here - but I like to assume common sense would prevail. The fact that you COULD borrow the chainsaw in the first place, is very much like the open source community - where ideas and code is freely shared. But, the rule of thumb in all cases is "Use at your own risk".
Now, commercial businesses, who offer some sort of license for their software, strongly suggest or imply that the license entitles the licensee to a warranty or guarantee. And that this makes their product a better choice than comparable open source products. They are implying that an open source product doesn't offer a warranty or guarantee. But, when you read the fine print of their own licenses, you realize they don't either.
So the short of it is that any software you use - no matter who it comes from - has very little warranties or guarantees, and that in all cases you need to use the software at your own risk. And don't let the idea of paying for a license be the deciding factor in which software to use - afterall the commercial license doesn't usually offer any warranties, and actively restricts your rights in how you can use the software. Based solely on that, I would personally favor an open source license, as they typically embrace the "sharing" idea of a community, and impose much fewer restrictions on my rights.
You are free to use this information, but "Use at your own risk".