>> Are you personally willing to guarantee the
>> security and the reliability of a software
>> solution you would sell to some of your client?
Well, you should ask this question to Microsoft, not to me. I would gladly see Microsoft change the EULA for their products, but that has nothing to do with the discussion here. They are just one more software vendor that should abide by any level of acceptance the government imposes.
Speaking os which, i still don't the answer to my question. "They do not guarantee, so we will not as well, but you should believe us when we say ours is better" is not good enough. Shouting loudly "we are better because we are open" does not make you right. Nor does "We are better because we are free".
Now, "We do better job and have superior product and those are not just marketing gimmicks - we are willing to stand by our words and allow you to sue us if we are proven wrong; meanwhile as a bonus over the competitors - here's the source for our code. Oh, btw you can have it for free as well" is different story. If any open source software company or programmer tell me this, i would be the first to say that the open source model is better than anything else.
>I would be more willing to do so while using gcc
>than while using a proprietary compiler. I don't
>have to rely exclusively on the assertions of a
>third party that the compiler works correctly.
And what do you rely on when using gcc? Have you went through the gcc code and did you make extensive testing of it? Well, there might be people there that did it and there is a cnance you are one of them :-), but most probably you did not. So, you do rely only on the assertions of the gcc folks.