What does `remedy&#39; mean when applied to `malfunction&#39;?
<p>In a legal document, referenced from the license, describing the support service of a commercial software product, the obligations of the latter are described thus:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When Licensee reports malfunctions, <em>Company</em> supports Licensee by providing information on
  how to remedy, avoid or bypass errors. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>After consulting several law dictionaries, I see that <em>remedy</em> is the general term for the restoration of justice, without regard to the method or manner of doing so. Do I then understand aright that in this context it does not, necessarily, imply actually <em>fixing</em> bugs in the program, for a <em>remedy</em> may be a compensation, or it may deal with alleviating the consequences of a defect, rather than removing the defect itself?</p>

<p>Also, I find it suspicious that <em>Company's</em> reaction to reports of malfunctions is strictly informative. Of course, one may suppose that such infomration may comprise an instruction to install a corrected version of the software, but is it safe to make the assumption, or shall one look for an explicit promise to correct errors in the software?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Do I then understand aright that in this context it does not, necessarily, imply actually fixing bugs in the program, for a remedy may be a compensation, or it may deal with alleviating the consequences of a defect, rather than removing the defect itself?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is specifically vague, remember, licenses are there to protect the <em>software vendor</em> not the software purchaser. They don't want to be bound to that product forever, so in this case when they say "remedy", they mean "fix" or resolve.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Also, I find it suspicious that Company's reaction to reports of malfunctions is strictly informative.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Of course it is. Again, they are protecting themselves, not you. If you find a bug in the software that <em>only</em> affects you, they aren't going to spend $1,000,000 fixing that bug and deploying the fix, along with negative press and other costs. They might just say "thanks, we'll submit a bug report. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>... or shall one look for an explicit promise to correct errors in the software?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>You will not find this in a license agreement. These kinds of promises are higher up in something called a "service level agreement" or SLA. They are highly tailored specifically to the relationship between the vendor and the buyer and are not typically available unless you are the federal government or a major purchaser. </p>

<p>(From comments)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If it means to fix, then one of the vendor's obligations is provision of information on how to fix malfunctions in their software, which is not even open-source. Just imagine—how is one to go about fixing a malfunction in, say, Microsoft Excel? In that sad sentence, the vendor declines the obligation to fix malfunctions in their software. Is it common practice?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's very common practice (and getting a little off-topic). Again, software companies don't want to be married to a product for any longer than it is profitable. Licenses are sometimes perpetual, but the obligation to support that software in any meaningful way is typically very limited. The vagueness of the license offers them an out, such as recommending purchasing a newer version, paying them to do the fix, or just recommending alternative software (that may or may not work for you).</p>

software licensing remedies