EULAs (rant)
 

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

Another thing that is usually in the EULA is that the software company is not liable for any damaged caused to Windows or any other software on your system. Most are only liable for the purchase price of the product.

In other words, if you were running a small business or something and you kept all your records on that system that was worth thousands of dollars, and you installed something that hosed Windows, tough luck getting any money in a lawsuit. They will be happy to send you back your fifty bucks though.

Thank you for bringing this subject up because it is one that needs to get out. And the word needs to be spread. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy to do anything that would force a change in the EULA (such as refuse to use the software).

If you want change though, we, as computer users, need to stop using these products (in LARGE numbers) - and I don't just mean stop buying them, I mean stop USING them - don't even pirate them. Use alternatives. Write these companies and TELL them that you are using alternatives until they clean up their EULA's and their acts.

Of course, there will probably never be a significant number of people enough for it to have any effect, so until then thoe of us with the courage will just drudge along being in the minority, hoping that one day it will catch on.

actually, i think the validity of any sort of licencing without any physical contractual signing remains largely untested in court. Additionally, any contract between you and a company that either contains a criminal offense, or contradicts a law can be legally nullified anyway.

i have to do some research on this topic for an assignment, so i'll do said research and get back to you all =)

Theres a benefit to protecting your butt. And your property.

I'm all for the EULA. True, its long, boring, and written in a way that only a lawyer can love. BUT THEY WORK.

Imagine if all the people who own a program, if all their computers exploded. And the company had no EULA. They would be responsible for all damages made. Not only that, but people could intentionally harm their computer, and the company would have to spend even more money to prove that it's product was not the cause of it.

Overall, the EULA is the lowest cost alternative. It is cheaper to print a long series of text than it is for litigation, and payment of damages.


EDIT:
Oops, I didn't read the entire post. Ignore me for now.

*laughs at the wonderful example meanSpleen set ;)*

EULA's, generally speaking, are good. It's the CONTENT of the EULAs that is a problem, and a big one at that.

Hear hear. That's why I don't use commercial software anymore. The BSD license basically just says "Do whatever you want with this but if you fuck it up don't blame us".

Yahoo/Geocities had a clause that stated that anything posted on a Geocities website, ?Yahoo Group, or said in a Yahoo Email was legal property of Yahoo. I haven't touched them after that.