Does anyone actually read these things before they install their software? I mean, they're long, they're boring, they're extremely complicated with all their "legalese", and they're about as exciting to read as a dictionary. Plus, it puts you in a "take it or leave it" situation with nowhere else to go. And where can you go? Every other software company out there is doing the exact same thing.
I know it's an important thing to read before I sign my life away in a single click, but I just can't do it. I often get to the second bullet point before my eyes gloss over, and my will finally weakens.
Of course companies need to protect their interests, but what pisses me off is that some software companies have even started using these convoluted writings as an opportunity to add some deceptive wording.
Take RadLight, for example. If you decided to install their software, it would come quietly bundled with a load of spyware. The user had no reason to be surprised by this, because it was all clearly mentioned deep within their EULA. Quite a common practice these days for most free software, I might add.
However, I single out RadLight mostly because they decided to up the ante, and go one step further. They had the audacity to uninstall your copy of AdAware because AdAware threatened their revenue model. They tried to legitimize their actions by mentioning the uninstall process in their EULA, and quietly forcing the user to agree with it, even if the user didn't want it to happen. It did cause quite an uproar (with RadLight running for cover and even changing their name), but it shows how some companies can go to great lengths to abuse the purpose of an EULA.
And it doesn't stop there. Even bigger compnies like <a href="http://www.borland.com" target="_blank">Borland</a> have tried to come out with an <a href="http://freshmeat.net/.misc/borland-license.txt" target="_blank">EULA</a> that was, by all definitions, <a href="http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369/" target="_blank">extremely intrusive</a>.
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com" target="_blank">Microsoft</a> was just as guilty, writing up an EULA for FrontPage 2002 that stated;
<I> "You may not use the software in connection with any site that disparages Microsoft, MSN, MSNBC, Expedia, or their products or services, infringe any intellectual property or other rights of these parties, violate any state federal or international law, or promote racism, hatred, or pornography."</I>
So, essentially, you were allowed to use the software, as long as you only said nice things about Microsoft and its products. Free Speech, would you please get up and leave the room.
I know that EULAs have to follow the contract laws whereever the EULA was accepted, but still, if a multi-million dollar corporation ever decides to enforce some of the outrageous terms imposed by an EULA, you could be tied up in court for months, even years trying to prove your case. I know you might say that it's unlikely for software companies to start going after customers who violate their EULA, but a few months ago, I would have said it was unlikely that the RIAA would go after their customers for pirating. Now, I just don't know anymore.
I could go on forever about this, but suffice it to say, no matter how you look at it, it seems like it's a no-win situation for the end user.
End rant.
Edit: Duh. It's Free Spe<b>e</b>ch, not Free Spe<b>a</b>ch