Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3D8CDE33.6040503@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <3D8D2519.8080409@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <3D8D345C.F24B7DE0@xympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Registered professional engineer?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:02:37 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 18:02:47 BST
"Peter O. Brackett" wrote in message
> > You can not normally waive safety liability, especially in a
> > transaction. It goes against public policy. In addition, in the UK,
> > is actually a *criminal* offence to attempt to waive a consumers
> > statuary rights, that's why companies that know the law will usually
> > state "your statutory rights are not effected".
> Heh, heh... Well in theory you cannot make a consumer waive such
> some countries, but...
In the USA it depends on what state you are, it can get quite
> "In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they are
> different." --Yogi Bera
> Kevin you well know that there is a blatent attempt, by most software
> vendors, to do just this each and every time an intended user
> either, breaks the seal on a shrink wrapped piece of software or,
> the "I accept" button during a software "setup". The typical
> unassuming small print I believe goes something like the following
> paraphrase: "If the user do not accept the terms of this license then
> he/she must return it [unopened] for a full refund of the purchase
> Heh, heh... Caveat Emptor.
The Uniform commercial code update in the USA is trying to enforce this
the USA. Quite disgusting really.
For companies like MS, the disclaimer is what they really wish to be the
case. For most smaller companies, I would suggest that that is not how
they will act in practise. Its to prevent them being sued for millions
of dollars in extraneous circumstances, but the decent ones will do
their best to sort things out, despite their disclaimer.
> For anyone who is wise enough to practice "Caveat Emptor" it is
> investigate some popular software products, but only the most
> would be able to access such data. For actual examples of potentially
> harmful deficiencies in just one popular package cfr:
> Don't get me wrong, I am not against inexpensive [cheap] untested and
> unreliable software, I use much of it myself, I have written this kind
> software myself, and I am pleased to do so. But in my case, as a
> Professional, I make the deficiencies and risks clearly obvious and
> to obfuscate. But then I am a knowledgeable user/creator of software
> fully able to test the limits of software that I use for engineering
> purposes and willing to take and accept the attendant risks.
> Such is not true for many naive users though.
> I abhor the unmitigated gall of most software vendors [led by
> non-professional example] with their "pretense" that they are really
> high quality stuff, when clearly they are not! What is it that The
> often says, "We make great software!"
> Let me recall now...
> Kevin are you not a software vendor yourself? What is your policy?
> Do you pass the responsibility for errors and omissions in the core
> code within SuperSpice back to those academics/grad students at UC
> and GA Tech who threw it together... or... could a user absolutely
> upon SuperSpice simulations to guarantee the non-fatal behaviour of a
> cardiac heart pacer designed using SuperSpice simulations?
> What is your advice to the SuperSpice consumer?
Well, when I was in my amusing site stage, I had:
Before downloading any Software you must read and agree to the EULA
Licensing Agreement. This is where we disclaim any and all liabilities
whatsoever, including willful, negligent murder, and hope that you can't
be bothered to read it.
A section from my current licencs, on the site, is:
11 To the extent permitted by law, all liabilities associated with the
use of this software are hereby disclaimed. The software is supplied,
"AS IS", with no claim for suitability for any particular purpose, and
with all costs and risks accepted by the user, or that the software will
function correctly with all circuit arrangements..
12 Nothing in this License agreement shall be construed to limit any
statuary legal rights that specific jurisdictions may provide, so some
of the above limitations may not apply to you.
It would be daft for anyone to rely on unqualified general purpose
simulation products in life critical applications. There is no way to
guarantee that the simulation is going to accurate, or that the models
are that accurate. Its not even possible to guarantee mathematically,
that any equation that has a solution, can actually be solved
numerically. I try to get people to have a good run through with the
demo to make sure that it does what they think it should do. I would
also suggest that various legal medical standard laws would prohibit
reliance on products that were not specifically qualified for
As far as bugs go in SuperSpice/XSpice, I try to fix what is reasonable.
If you check my site http://www.anasoft.co.uk/features.html you'll see
huge list of continuing fixes, and no one pays for a bug fix update!.
I have this on my pricing page:
Product Support and Updates:
Updates and bug fixes, when and if issued, will be provided free of
charge for a period of at least 2 years. Other general support, issues
specifically related to SuperSpice will be provided free of charge via
Every reasonable effort will be made to rectify bugs and other feature
issues. However it should be appreciated that it might not be practical
in applications as complex as SuperSpice to do so. In the majority of
cases a reasonable workaround will be offered.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.