Slashdot Mirror
Examples Of Questionable EULAs?
Vergil Bushnell approached me with a wonderful opportunity. He writes: "I'm an e-commerce policy analyst working for the Consumer Project on Technology, a research and advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader. I spend much of my time working to oppose UCITA. I'm trying to collect examples of particularly egregious shrinkwrap and clickwrap license "agreement" clauses to better illustrate the potential repercussions of the UCITA. I would like to ask Slashdot readers to contribute examples of such clauses -- especially those that seek to prevent benchmarks/ criticism, allow software licensors to harvest confidential data about consumers and their activities, and
permit remote termination and/or the existence of "backdoors" in software. So if you've ever had a problem with the language of a particular EULA, and you are worried about the notion of the UCITA now is your chance to do your small part in trying to get the law changed. Read on...
"Egregious EULA clauses posted as the result of this 'Ask Slashdot' will be verified and posted on CPT's UCITA Web site -- (giving credit to the "discoverer") for all to see.
Please accompany your postings with a brief description of how you discovered the EULA (if downloaded, include the URL of the relevant Web site), the date you found the EULA, and (if you wish to receive credit for finding the EULA) your name."
It's been a while, but if I recall right, EQ had an incredibly restrictive (and long) EULA.
"THE ENTIRE RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THE COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES REMAINS WITH YOU."
"TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE COMPONENTS AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT SERVICES"
So much for the softie argument "Yeah, Linux is okay, but who do you sue when something goes wrong?" If you're using Microsoft, the answer is "The same people you sue if your using Linux, nobody." Fortunately you can go to the Linux community and get help for free.
1) The Timex Datalink watch.
2) an old Office 95 licence
1) The watch code is licensed ONLY for Windows 3.1, WFW and Windows 95. YET the watch box says NT is supported. A call to Timex was 'oh, that is a typo'
2) The clause that says you can only run the code on PROPERLY LICENCED copies of the windows operating system. If you didn't send in the warranty card -> licence is not "proper", and therefore you were in violation of the licence.
And a personal fav - Clause f of the EULA that says 'if you get sued and Microsoft is named, you have to pay M$'s lawyer bills.'
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
I think that most EULA's are damn scary, They remove all liabilty of damage from the manufacturer. Say a know glitch in the software eats your business up. All data is corrupt. They knew about it, but are they liable. Um. NO. But if you want to use the latest and greatest, you need to Click to accept.
This one should be a good example, as it gives the company the power to restrain legitimate free speech by banning criticism through an EULA.
You know what to do with the HELLO.
You know what to do with the HELLO. ...
Help create an open-source world
I don't know of any examples of bad EULA agreements that I have come across, but then I only ever tend to use free software, which doesn't (usually?) have that problem.
However, I did recently come across an article in Computer Weekly where some companies that licence software are being charged amounts of up to, say, £3,000,000 for anything as small as a company name change, all because of dodgy licence agreements and associated business. It's not something that affects every one of us, but it's still out there! IIRC, there is some campaign on to fight against these mad charges.
I say they should use free software...
By using our Web site, you consent to the collection and use of your personal information by MP3.com as outlined in this Privacy Policy.
But I never read the agreement!
I also don't have a copy with me, but on the Microsoft Y2K update cdrom's that they mailed out (I don't know what you have to do to get on that list) the wrapper of the cdrom said that by using the cdrom, I agreed to the terms and conditions of the license agreement, stored on the cdrom! These are clearly catch-22 situations, and oughta be illegal - except for UCITA, which makes them binding.
Visit
I would imagine that an EULA is looked on the exact same way that a rental agreement, or any other contract in the USA is looked at. If the contract violates the law, or your rights you do not have to abide by that contract. For instance, my rental agreement says something to the effect of "if at any time, any part of this document becomes illegal or otherwise violates a legal precedence this contract is null and void - a new one will need to be reinstated". Why is software any different? Aside from the fact that the Software and hardware industries have been the engine for the USA's economic growth - it still doesn't change the law -- look at Microsoft.
UCITA tries to violate the rights given to US consumers, much like a lot of the `extreme legislation' that has been happening of late this would be completely thrown out by any higher court.
Any thoughts?
I think the absolute worst case of EULA abuse are the clauses that forbid performance reporting that are found in Oracle, and most of the other major database vendors.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
License agreements (and all legal documents) are supposed to be understood by the parties entering into the agreement. As it stands, most EULAs are full of legal mumbo-jumbo.
If I'm installing a piece of software at 2am, am I really expected to read through a lengthy document and consult a lawyer when I don't understand a particular clause? If you ask the company whose product I've just bought, yes.
If you ask me, that is an unreasonable expectation. Do you know what lawyers cost? Do you think I should have to keep one on retainer just for the cases where I install commercial software? Hell, that would cost as much or more as buying the software in the first place!
Additionally, these companies try to avoid any liability issues. Suppose I buy a defective dishwasher that sparks and catches my house on fire... who is responsible for that? Maytag (or whoever, no offense to Maytag intended or implied).
If a memory leak in someone's latest, greatest software package corrupts vital data (say in the kernel of my new media-less Windows 2000 system), who's to blame? No one. (Well, I'd be the one to blame if I was stupid enough to rely on M$ Win2000 for anything more important than minesweeper!) Problem is that many companies do rely on software such as this, and pay large amounts of money to do so... you'd think they would have bought a bit of accountability to go along with it.
Eric
The producer who demands agreement to the license doesn't even have an "anonymous" ID (like the name on this post); click/shrink-wrap licenses are like putting "by reading the following posting you agree to the following conditions..." on a /. response - it's a legal absurdity because the one requiring agreement to terms hasn't got the foggiest clue who is doing the agreeing.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
Xing Technology Corporation
End-User License Agreement
This License Agreement (this "Agreement") is a legal agreement between you and Xing Technology Corporation, a California corporation ("Xing") for the accompanying software, associated media, printed materials, audiovisual content, and "online" or electronic documentation (collectively, the "Product"). By installing or using the Product, you agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. If you do not agree to all of the terms of this agreement, de-install all copies of the Product from your computer and return all Product materials to your distributor or Xing for a refund of any license fees paid.
LICENSE:
1. The Product is licensed, not sold. The Product is protected by copyright law and international copyright treaty provisions, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. You must not allow copies of the Product or any part of it to be made or distributed to anyone else. You may make backup copies of the software for archival purposes only.
2. Xing grants to you a non-exclusive, non-sublicensable license to use the Product for your own use only.
[pretty standard so far, right?]
3. The Product is licensed for use on a single session of a single computer. If your computer is capable of running more than one simultaneous session, you may not use the Product on more than one session at a time. You may delete the Product from one computer and reinstall it on another, but you may not install the Product on more than one computer at any given time. If you wish to install the Product on more than one computer or use the Product for more than one session on a particular computer, you must purchase separate copies of the Product for each such computer or session.
[in other words, you can't run two instances of the program at the same time, nor can you install it on two computers, even if only one of them would be in use at a time (i.e. home vs work).]
4. The Product may not be rented, leased, or in any other manner commercially exploited without prior written permission of Xing. However, you may transfer this license to use the Product to another party (the "Transferee") on a permanent basis by transferring all parts of the Product to the Transferee. Such transfer of possession terminates your license from Xing. The Transferee will be licensed under the terms of this Agreement upon the Transferee's acceptance of this Agreement by its initial use of the Product. Upon notification to Xing of the transfer, the Transferee will receive customer support on the same terms you did at the time of the transfer, and the Transferee will receive no support if for any reason you were ineligible for support. If you transfer the Product, you must remove all parts of it, along with any installation devices, from your computer, and you may not retain any parts or copies for your own use.
[so much for right of first sale..]
5. The Product in source code form is confidential and Xing's protected trade secret, and you may not attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise decipher any portion of the Product. Reproduction and/or redistribution of any portion of the Product is specifically prohibited in the absence of a separate written agreement with Xing.
[Hooray for DMCA! You can't reverse engineer or otherwise use xing's software for anything other than what the UI lets you do.]
6. If audiovisual content contained in or bundled with the Product (the "Content") contains its own license agreement, that agreement controls use of the Content. Otherwise, use of the Content is controlled by this Agreement. You may not modify, copy, or distribute the Content except to the extent this Agreement allows modification, copying, or distribution of the Product. You may not use the Content except in conjunction with personal testing or demonstration of the Product. The Content must at all times remain with the Product in its original form.
7. All video, audio, and other content accessed through the Product is the property of the applicable content owner and may be protected by applicable copyright law. This Agreement gives you no rights to such content.
8. If you use the Product to create or distribute audio, video, or other content, Xing is not responsible for such content, and you are solely responsible, for the property rights, legality, and regulation of all such content, including but not limited to issues of copyright ownership and obscenity regulation worldwide.
9. Xing retains all ownership and intellectual property rights in and to the Product. You agree to abide by the copyright law and all other applicable laws of the United States, including those relating to United States export controls. You agree not to ship or re-export any portion of the Product to any destination to which it could not lawfully have been exported originally under those export controls.
10. Xing may terminate this Agreement at any time by delivering notice to you, and you may terminate this Agreement at any time by removing all copies of the Product from your computer and destroying all Product materials. However, Sections 4 through 12 of this Agreement shall indefinitely survive its termination. This Agreement is personal to you and you agree not to assign your rights under it. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California and by U.S. federal law relating to intellectual property in general, and to copyrights, patents, and trademarks in particular. You agree to submit all disputes to the exclusive jurisdiction of courts or tribunals located within the territorial boundaries of the U.S.
11. The Product is covered solely by the accompanying Xing Limited Warranty. THE PRODUCT IS PROVIDED WITHOUT ANY OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
12. XING SHALL NOT BE LIABLE: (A) FOR INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OF ANY SORT WHATSOEVER, WHETHER ARISING IN TORT, CONTRACT, OR OTHERWISE (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, REVENUES, OR INFORMATION, OR FOR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) RESULTING FROM YOUR USE OF THE PRODUCT OR YOUR INABILITY TO USE THE PRODUCT, EVEN IF XING HAS BEEN INFORMED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES; OR (B) FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY PARTY OTHER THAN YOU. IN NO EVENT SHALL XING'S LIABILITY TO YOU EXCEED THE AMOUNT YOU ORIGINALLY PAID FOR THE PRODUCT. THIS LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL NOT APPLY TO LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE LAW PROHIBITS SUCH LIMITATION. SOME STATES AND JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION AND EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
13. The Product is provided with Restricted Rights. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the U.S. Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities is subject to the restrictions set forth in subdivision (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013, or in subdivision (c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Commercial Computer Software -- Restricted Rights clause at 48 CFR 52.227-19, as applicable. Manufacturer/contractor is Xing Technology Corporation, 2925 McMillan, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
"Xing" and "StreamWorks" are registered trademarks, "SmartFAQ" is a service mark, and "XingMPEG", "MPEGLive!", "MPEG2Live!", "MP3Live!", "XingMP3", "StreamWorks MP3 Server", "XingDVD", "AudioCatalyst", "XingMP3 Player" and all logo and graphic designs are trademarks of Xing Technology Corporation.
Other product and company names appearing in Xing Technology Corporation products and materials are used for identification purposes only and may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies. Registered and unregistered trademarks used in any Xing Technology Corporation products and materials are the exclusive property of their respective owners.
Copyright (c) 1994-99 Xing Technology Corporation. All rights reserved.
[license ends with more standard legal stuff, including the obligatory all-caps "we aren't responsible, damnit!" section.]
Nathan Strong
change "geeblooz" to "gblues" and remove ".has.crappy.service" to e-mail me.
Please inform Mr. Nader that I am still having problems with my Corvair. It has now flipped over 143 times when making right hand turns. I hope he will be able to do something about it because my poor head is starting to hurt! I have to run now, Art Linkletter will be on the Philco soon.
I ripped this and made my own modifications from some other guy who probably did the same thing. Keep the meme alive!
By clicking here you acknowlege that you like the colour blue.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
I was given the task earlier this week to track down some prices for a web serving solution that my company is looking at setting up. The specs included Allaire's Coldfusion Server (for those not enlightened, Coldfusion is remotely similar to ASP and PHP), backed by Microsoft SQL Server 7.
I had heard, from an acquaintance that there was some sort of special licensing when putting an SQL server on the 'net, so I checked out the MSSQL website, and ran accross something called an "Internet Connector License" on the Licensing and Pricing page.
According to this page, you need to purchase a license for each client of MSSQL Server. Makes sense. Client licensing is commonly used in the industry. I have no big beef with this.
In my proposed setup, as I mentioned, the web users would connect to the webserver, which in turn connects to the Coldfusion Daemon, which requests information from the SQL server. Coldfusion would be the only client of the SQL server. Nothing else would be connecting. So, naturally, I thought that I would only need one(1) Client Access License (CAL) for the Coldfusion Server.
Microsoft thinks differently. See, according to Microsoft's legal department (and my supplier), each user of my web server is indirectly a client of the SQL server, and therefore, I need licenses for user who receives pages generated by the Coldfusion daemon.
Since it's pretty much impossible to determine how many different users will visit the server, and VERY impractical to try and maintain a bank of licenses for the userbase, Microsoft has 'conveniently' created a special licensing package which covers all internet based users.
The Internet Connector License is $2999USD. This is ridiculous. There is no added value to this 'product', no extra features, and is just an underhanded way to make extra cash. Web users never connect to the SQL server. By this logic, if I pull information from a MSSQL server put it into a word processor, and print 100 copies of this document, I need 100 client licenses.
THIS is a questionable EULA.
As i see it you usually pay alot of money for nothing. What do you get if you pay 1k or more for software that is widely used ? Nothing.
You get the "right" to use their software, you have to shut your mouth if it doesn't work and you can't sue them if anything goes wrong...
Why pay the 1k? For research? For development? Hell... MS didn't get this big if these two things were really that expensive.
As i see it... Use UCITA and EULA, lower the prices. Or give people more rights when you ask that ammount of money. That way you will be able to pay up any liability lawsuits you encounter when your software causes a boo-boo.
(i) Giving a copy of the software 'to your mates' will be punishable by a low ranking Microsoft employee coming round to your house and stealing one of your favorite DVD's or CD's. (ii) Installation of the software product on a home PC while the System Administrator has turned a blind eye will be tolerated until such times as a useful application has been developed. At such times, Microsoft will own the application on question, and shall have free reign to make the product integral to NGWS, therefore dictating that you no longer own any part of the original application, and must pay for it's continual usage, now and for evermore, amen. (iii) Mass copying of the software product for profitable reasons will be addressed by the cruellest punishment imaginable. Bill Gates & Steve Ballmer will come round to your house and perform a floor show for you.
I understand that most software creators want to cover their butts (and save on the expense of support) by detaching themselves from responsibility. Hence the "use at your own risk" statements. But backdoors? If I were a software creator...no, if I were the person in charge of the business decisions the software creators have to live by, there's NO way I'd incorporate such a process into my software without making it UNDENIABLY clear to the user that it's for their own good.
People don't like sneaky software and just one product that gives you a black eye can ruin your ability to sell products in the future. There's always competition and your competitors would just LOVE for you to piss off your users.
Anyone got any examples of license agreements where the user has to agree to an open back door? I'm up for being corrected. :)
bTJOD
~-- Yet another posting forum : nerd center --~
The "Legal Notice" on Borland's Community Web is rather interesting. I especially like:
Copyrights: The materials on this Site are copyrighted and protected by worldwide copyright laws and treaty provisions. You may download one copy of the information ("Materials") found on this Site on a single computer for your personal, non-commercial internal use only unless specifically licensed to do otherwise by Inprise Corporation in writing. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, Inprise Corporation does not grant any express or implied right to you to any patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, or other intellectual property
Only one download of an HTML page? And only for non-commercial use?
In fact, its gotten so boiler-plate that I'm surprised there isn't #include eula.h language on the distribution media. To wit: This software is protected by the USC EULA Software Act of 2001 and such.
Oh, wait, I forgot about UCITA...
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
The avowed purpose was to detect people using monitor and probe programs to cheat while playing the game, but the firestorm of criticism and controversy it set off led to the removal of the offending language.
I don't have the language (or even good references - it's been a couple of months, they've expired off the web sites) here at work, but this has to be held up as a pretty poor attempt at a license agreement. It basically allowed them to install, on my computer, at their convenience, a program which would monitor the processes I ran, and the data on my hard drive, and report back to them. If they'd actually done it - I'da quit.
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
Most of the retail software I see has a seal on the box (and CD) saying "By opening this pakage, you agree to the terms and conditions on the license agreement contained inside". OK, You open the box, not knowing what you agreed to; You read the license, say "no way in heck!", put the box back together and take it back to the store. You guessed it! "You cannot return opened software" Biggest problem is that on most of the license agreements, they say "If you do not agree to these terms and conditions, promptly return the software to your place of purchase for a refund" What do you do? What I do is take the software back, say "The CD is warped (or whatever)" and get an exchange. A few days later, return the exchange (which was left unopened). Or I just have fun with the manager (depends on how playful a mood I am in)
Everyone here was pretty outraged a few weeks ago over a click thru agreement buried in a .exe file you had to run to see microsoft's specs for their proprietary 'enhancements' to the kerebos standard. I didn't pay much attention but it certainly sounds like one of the more egregious non-enforceable eula's i've ever heard of - those who used winzip, like everyone should, didn't even see this screen. so who did this and can supply the details to this crusader?
From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
In other words, you do _not_ have to agree to the GPL to run the program. You never have to agree to the GPL. But if you don't, you can't copy, modify or distribute the software, because the only way you'll get the right to do that is through the license.
The GPL is based on copyright, and gives you the ability to do things you'd ordinarily not be able to do, in exchange for certain restrictions. Shrinkwrap licenses remove your ability to do things you'd be able to do, absent the license.
I see a lot of people complaining that they don't want to have to take each EULA to their lawyers to determine whether the terms are agreeable. This is missing the point. Under the statutory law (that's law passed by legislative bodies, rather than courts, BTW) a consumer's rights can be implied into or superimposed over the terms and conditions that appear in a EULA. Also, statutory law can govern the rights between a vendor and a consumer in areas where the agreement is silent. THIS IS WHAT UCITA ATTEMPTS TO DO, BUT UCITA IS VENDOR-BIASED.
Since ordinary people like you and me will never be able to negotiate any EULA's with Microsoft or any other vendor, we have to try to make laws like UCITA more consumer-oriented so that vendors are not allowed to place outrageous terms in the EULA's. Therefore, keep in mind that (a) lawyers can't help you negotiate EULA's because you (joe consumer) have no leverage, and (b) even though joe consumer has no leverage, all the joe consumers together can tell their lawmakers to override the overreaching portions in EULA's through legislation.
Final point: don't forget that courts can override both the vendor's EULA, but also the statutory law, so if both of them still don't get it (as apparently they do not), then there is always hope that a judge will see the light and change things for the better. Remember to chose your battles, and this is one worth fighting.
Please note: by powering on this computer you agree to abide by the licensing terms of DOS 3.3
Common practice today, any computer you buy will have a sticker like this on it. So there is NO opportunity to request a refund for the unused software, or otherwise disagree with the license and opt not to use the software if you want to use the computer. How fair is that?
This is a quote from section 1 of the Sybase 11.0.3.3 release for Linux (the free release):
"Results of benchmark or other performance tests run on the Software may not be disclosed to any third party without Sybase's prior written consent."
First, this isn't an example of egregious EULA--it's an example of egregious PRICING. The EULA itself is, as you point out, entirely fair.
In any case, there is a way around this (at least there was 2 years ago, when I was doing something similar). Use MS Transaction Server (or whatever they are calling it nowadays). It "multiplexes" connections to various entities (COM objects, SQL servers, etc). At the time the licensing was as you expected: Multiple clients to MSTS are considered one connection to SQL.
--
Wanna hook MAPI clients to your Tru64/AIX/Linux server?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I am the parent of 3 kids. They are all minors (younger than 16). In our state, minors can not legally enter into contracts. Does this apply to EULAs? I believe that the thinking in the law is: kids do not have a firm enough grasp of the long term legal concequences of contracts.
So, does this apply in EULAs? If one of my kids puts a program on my computer that does damage, they could not be held to the contract. I did not enter into the contract, I can't be held responsible, is the vendor now held responsible? They knowingly sell to minors . . .
Bob YoungThink it. Draw it. Run it.
I believe it was the driver cd for my diamond viper v770 tnt2 card. While the license wasn't particularly interesting of itself, the packaging method was. The paper cd case had a sticker across the opening with something resembling the following:
"By breaking this seal, you agree to the conditions of the enclosed license agreement"
Thus it was (in theory) impossible to read the agreement before agreeing to it. Granted, i ripped through the side of the sleeve instead, but it's still a nuisance.
-Tannin Kal
in reading the win95 eula i came across this...
... If the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is an upgrade, any transfer must include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
* Software Transfer.
in this case would win98 upgrade packs only be able to be resold if win95 was with them. but then again it IS micro$oft!
Life is like a box of laxatives...
...
You, henceforth referred to as either "you" or "the poor, misguided, hapless user", agree to all of the following conditions:
1) You may only run this software under [Names of PC operating systems currently available from companies in Redmond, WA].
2) You acknowledge that [Names of PC operating systems currently available from companies in Redmond, WA] are unstable, unreliable, untrustworthy, insecure and bug-riddled.
3) Because of the inadequate state of [Names of PC operating systems currently available from companies in Redmond, WA], you acknowledge that any problems, shortcomings, or failures you experience while using this software are the fault of [Names of PC operating systems currently available from companies in Redmond, WA].
4) You agree to report any bugs to your operating system vendor and demand that they be fixed.
That disclaimer isn't very restrictive at all. And it's not an EULA, it's common sense.
Remove the NOSPAM to spam me...
So your not allowed to benchmark their software and publish it without thier prior consent. Probably if they do not like the results.
"230-2. The customer shall not disclose the results of any 230-benchmark test to any third party without Network 230-Associates' prior written approval. 230- 230-3. The customer will not publish reviews of the product 230-without prior consent from Network Associates. 230-"
* Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). A "License Pack" allows you to install, use, access, display and run additional copies of the Product up to the number of "Licensed Copies" specified above. The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device")to connect to the Workstation Computer to utilize the services of the Product solely for file and print services, internet information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The ten connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. You may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to display the Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product.
In the emphasized area, doesn't this mean that you cannot download, run, etc.. from a telnet, FTP or etc session running on a windows 2000 machine if you don't have Windows 2000?
4. TRANSFER-Internal. You may move the Product to a different Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. No Rental. You may not rent, lease, or lend the Product.
What, If I sell (err.. transfer) this to Joe down the hall from me, Joe can't sell (err..transfer) it to someone else? What a crock!
7. CONSENT TO USE OF DATA. You agree that Microsoft and its affiliates may collect and use technical information you provide as a part of support services related to the Product. Microsoft agrees not to use this information in a form that personally identifies you.
Just your standard "we can collect any information on you that we wish only for some vaguely stated purpose, as long as you are "anonymous"
Then, of course it goes on and on with the standard "you can't sue us for anything" crap.
-Keithel
Here's one from Walker Digital.com, they own priceline.com and a lot of patents. This is the beginning of their "Conditions of Use":
t ies/intellectual_properties.cfm?screen_id= 2
NOTICE.
PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY. BY ACCESSING THIS SITE AND ANY PAGES ON THIS SITE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BELOW. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BELOW, DO NOT ACCESS THIS SITE, OR ANY PAGES ON THIS SITE.
They go on to disallow "decompiling" or "disassembling" the site (hmm...guess I can't "View Source"), retrieving any info from their site by "automated means", or framing the site. Also they have a section that removes any liability from anything they might post on the site. Gee, I guess they could have a bunch of illegal MP3's for download if they wanted to, since the RIAA would agree to the conditions of use by looking at the site.
Here's one of my favorite parts: "Walker Digital Corporation may, at any time revoke your access to the Web Site..." Like they could really keep someone out.
I'd post all of it but they'd probably sue me under the terms of the EULA. Here's a link to the page so you can read it (and be disgusted like I was):
http://www.walkerdigital.com/IntellectualProper
When we see these agreements on products from big companies, we feel like we're being oppressed. (Or is it only I?) But my company's EULA is largely intended to protect us from even larger ones. We have a modest legal staff (in number, that is :-) but we couldn't survive being litigated by one of the Fortune 500.
...on my peel-off calendar.
Dilbert reads on package: SOFTWARE LICENSE: BY OPENING THIS PACKAGE, YOU AGREE...YOU WILL NOT MAKE COPIES OR EXPORT TO DESPOTIC NATIONS. YOU WILL SUBMIT TO STRIP SEARCHES IN YOUR HOME...
[Dilbert rips open packaged software]
A heavy-set nurse walks in the room, pulling on a shoulder-length rubber glove: "Frankly, both of us would have been happier if you had just walked away."
1) The reader will not moderate this (or any other post by this author) in any negative fashion.
2) The author makes no warranty, express or implied, about the usability of this post in this or any other fourm, topicality of this post to the question at hand, quality of spelling or content or correctness of information.
3) The author shall not be responsible for damages to computer equipment or software arising from this post.
4) Unauthorized attempts to bypass the copy protection in this post shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in the state of Virginia or whichever state comes up with a better version of the UCITA.
5) The reader agrees to provide the author with food and beer, should the author appear on their doorstep demanding these items.
6) This post is Patent Pending.
7) This post is (TM) The Committee to Save the Endangered Malaria Mosquito (TM) Any infrigement on this trademark shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
One area I've not yet seen discussed is that of XML Schema licensing. These are a huge, and as yet unappreciated, area of IP rights.
What is XML all about ? IMHO, it's both encouraging easy extensibility, and easy distribution of the resulting schemas between parties who wish to communicate.
BizTalk is a well-known example of a schema exchange medium, but what should be a perfect usage for a reliable and proven mechanism like GNU CopyLeft is actually a vague and poorly worded para that gives Microsoft the ability to do whatever they like with your work:
Publishers who upload or otherwise submit contribute schemas or other works to the BizTalk.org library grant Microsoft the right to display, store, transmit, make copies for archive purposes, create derivative works and make these contributed works publicly available in any way they please.
Now speaking personally, I will grant redistribution rights on my own creative work to Microsoft when they start granting theirs to me....
As another example, here's a snippet from the licence for XrML. The bizarre thing here is that my current project is so scared of the implications of this licence that we've adopted a clean room policy to avoid any possible impact on our own future development work - yet one of my coworkers is actually quoted and named on their site as being an advocate of the project !
Modifications to the XrML Specifications:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, ContentGuard grants to You the right to make XrML Modifications, provided that You:
Your License Grants to ContentGuard and to Other Licensees:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this License You grant ContentGuard and all other Licensees a world-wide, royalty-free unlimited license to use all XrML Derivative Works that You create. This license includes the right to use, copy and create Derivative Works based on the XrML Derivative Works. You grant to ContentGuard the exclusive right to sublicense XrML Derivative Works that You create.
OK--so this is a little offtopic, but if we do not buy this software, but merely license it, then what about the money we pay to the retail stores to purchase it? They obviously pay the software vendor for the copies they sell. Do they merely license it, also? Does this mean that softwar companies are double-dipping when it comes to charges "licenses"?
Indeed - the beta version of their mp3 encoder for linux was in nice non-obfuscated form with all the symbols left in.
Reverse engineering of their encoder would be trivial.
It's a shame that Lame is so much better, and free.
(And I'll kill anyone who suggest blade is better in response to this - get it through your head)
One of the biggest "gotchas" which is incredably common (essentially universal) is the disclaimer of all liability for damage resulting from poor software.
One minor but good example: Microsoft should be liable for damage caused by the Melissa worm, they have known about the problem of word macro vicruses for years (one of the first wild word macro viruses was on a Microsoft CD!).
Yet there is no class action lawsuit aganst Microsoft, due to negligent design of the software, which they KNOW was asking for trouble and providing an incredible breeding ground for viruses.
Nicholas C Weaver
nweaver@cs.berkeley.edu
Test your net with Netalyzr
Uninstalling it would not allieve them of the responsibility to switch to all free software.
t
You write a license with clauses A-G. Clauses A-C give the licensee a number of rights, while the clauses D-F seem to slightly restrict those rights and extract promises from the user to not sue the producer, not to cdriticize the product and not to use any word beginning with a vowel. The use of words starting with 'y' will be determined by the producer on a case-by-case basis.
Clause G then says that if any of those clauses is invalid, that clause shall be void but the rest of the license will still be valid. The producer then goes on to put little flaws in each of the clauses A-F to make them invalid, leaving only the restrictions and no rights.
Of course, this would never actually work if it is true as has been said that a license can only actually grant rights bu not take them away and that the worst that it can threaten is the revokation of those rights, which in this case are none. But now apply this to a proper contract and we have trouble. (or free cash, depending on how evil you are)
Logi - I can do anything, but not everything.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Damn if every EULA doesn't say somewhere that [companyname] reserves the right to modify or terminate this EULA at any time and that you agree to these terms by using our product.
While not the worst I've seen, these two paragraphs appear to waive your right to pursue any sort of legal action against IBM even for situations where IBM knew about the problem in advance and did nothing. (Note that the first paragraph does allow a MAX of $100,000 if the software kills somebody. Unlikely for an e-commerce package, but I suppose anything's possible. In any event, you are still waiving your right to sue for more than the pitiful $100,000 they will give you in the event their product causes death. Also "tangible personal property" is covered under the same $100,000 umbrella, something of which there is very little of in the software industry. Everything at work here that we do is quite intangible.)
Circumstances may arise where, because of a default on IBM's part or other liability, you are entitled to recover damages from IBM. In each such instance, regardless of the basis on which you may be entitled to claim damages from IBM, (including fundamental breach, negligence, misrepresentation, or other contract or tort claim), IBM is liable for no more than 1) damages for bodily injury (including death) and damage to real property and tangible personal property and 2) the amount of any other actual direct damages up to the greater of U.S. $100,000 (or equivalent in your local currency) or the charges for the Program that is the subject of the claim.
IBM WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES OR FOR ANY ECONOMIC CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING LOST PROFITS OR SAVINGS), EVEN IF IBM, OR ITS RESELLER, HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.
"All rights of any kind in WinZip which are not expressly granted in this License are entirely and exclusively reserved to and by WCI. You may not rent, lease, modify, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or create derivative works based on WinZip. You may not make access to WinZip available to others in connection with a service bureau, application service provider, or similar business, or use WinZip in a business to provide file compression, decompression, or conversion services to others. There are no third party beneficiaries of any promises, obligations or representations made by WCI herein." pretty much a standard one but then it goes on to say "ANY LIABILITY OF WCI WILL BE LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO REFUND OF PURCHASE PRICE. IN ADDITION, IN NO EVENT SHALL WCI, OR ITS PRINCIPALS, SHAREHOLDERS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AFFILIATES, CONTRACTORS, SUBSIDIARIES, OR PARENT ORGANIZATIONS, BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RELATING TO THE USE OF WINZIP, OR YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH WCI." pretty scary that this makes them not liable for any crappy code. when people can get away with this kind of a license what intitiative do they have to protect the users?
Part of the bruhaha was Microsoft citing non-circumvention provisions of the DMCA in their letter to Slashdot. I got a mild kick out of reading that, when you put it together with the fact that circumvention does not become illegal until October. The only part of anti-circumvention that is currently in place is limitations on distribution of circumvention tools.
By their actions, Microsoft apparently turned WinZip into a circumvention tool illegal under the DMCA. For that matter, info-zip, pkunzip, gunzip and all of their ilk are also apparently illegal under the DMCA.
What if Microsoft had "protected" the MS-Kerberos spec with Rot13?
In the insurance world, aren't there some sort of minimum tests for protection, and aren't you required to make some sort of best effort to protect your property from theft or liability for injury of others? IMHO using a click-license stub on the front of a file that can be extracted readily with commonly available tools just doesn't qualify as protection.
Nor would using Rot13, which brings back to mind the original deCSS case. The encryption cracked to build deCSS was essentially a trivial 8-bit key, which would not be considered significant by anyone skilled in the art of cryptography. That indicates to me that they did not take sufficient efforts to protect their property. While that does not absolve the 'thief', it also means that the owner shares the blame. Isn't that the way it would work with physical property?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
"C-5. YOU MAY NOT: create scandalous, obscene or immoral works using the clipart and photo images (Collectively referred to as the "Images")"
"H. Export controls: except for export to canada for use in canada by canadian citizens, the program may not be exported outside of the united states or to any foreign entity or "foreign person" as defined by the u.s. government regulations, including without limitation anyone who is not a citizen, national or lawful permanent resident of the united states. By using the program, you are warranting that you are not a "foreign person" or under the control of a "foreign person""
Do I own a loaf of bread?
Seriously. Do I own a load of bread that I buy? Can I examine it under a microscope? Can I run chemical tests on it? Can I run it through a spectrometer? A gas chromatograph? Can I reverse engineer the recipe and make exact copies of it? Can I sell the copies for profit and not pay anything to the original break maker? Is this legal? Is this illegal? Did I have to sign a license? Click one? Will anyone stand up and tell me that "clicks" are as legally binging as a signature? Legally binding at all? By clicking here you agree to pay me $10,000,000 or as much of that as you can and the debt must be inherited to spouses or offspring if you die until it's paid off at 500% annual intrest. Hey, you clicked it! It's a license/contract/agreement/whatever. You're bound. Yah sure. God the software lawyers are not just stupid but really lame assed stupid.
Dilbert reading to himself..."By opening this package you agree you will not make copies or export to despotic nations. You will submit to strip searches in your home..."
Last frame in cartoon just as Dilbert rips open the package, a large woman with a flashlight appears and starts to put on a rubber glove and says..."Frankly, both of us would have been happier if you had just walked away."
--
dman123 forever!
--
dman123 forever!
Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
http://www.itu.reading.ac.uk/misc/Mailing_Lists/ cpd/00000040.htm
Mathematica (Wolfram Research) is one of the two best symbolic mathematical programs around (I use both it and Maple), and its interface is specific to the operating system on which it resides. So when I had to change OS (market forces, not preference) I asked WRI if it was possible to rewrite my Mathematica license (same computer, same user, different OS), so I could stay legal and above board. Sure, they said, sign an application for change, pay a fee, and all will be well. OK, I said.
But I read the fine print on the form I needed to sign. It authorized WRI to search my home any time they wanted to, and required me to cooperate in their search, so they could assure themselves that I didn't still have a hidden copy of the previously licensed program. I pointed out that even the Director of the FBI needs a court order to search my home, and that requires convincing a court that there is a reasonable presumption that something incriminating will be found. So, after a certain fuss, they waived that requirement in my case. But when asked if they were planning to remove this appalling clause from their standard form, I got only "my supervisor is aware of the problem." A dime says it is still there.
Read the fine print.
All this talk about if certain clauses are illegal then the whole EULA is illegal reminds me of a small part of the GNU General Public License:
-----------
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
------------
Now IANAL, but I think that if it were to happen (M$ court case, etc.. etc..) that some part of the GPL were made illegal, for example, if a piece of work is copyrighted, then no matter what the terms - it cant be copied (sounds like something the evil empire could conjour up and get made law), then all free software (Linux, GNU utilities, nearly every piece of software I use...) would be illegal, and the whole free software idea would break down...
Now that couldnt possibly happen in real life...
could it?
"...this product [e.g., a compiler] may not be used to create a product which competes with this one..."
"...[companyname] reserves the right to alter or revoke this EULA at any time and for any reason and without having to provide notification...and that you agree to these terms by using [softwareprocuct]..."
"...reverse engineering, disassembly, or any analysis of program code for any reason is prohibited..."
"...license is non-transferrable and must be surrendered to [companyname] upon termination for any reason..."
And them's just fer starters.
Maybe he can do something about how my Corsair which keeps getting shot down by Charon-boosted Goliaths and cloaked wraiths.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Unfortunately, I don't have the text of the license with me, only the CD itself, which doesn't show (as far as I can tell) the license, and decided DirectX 7 wasn't newer than DirectX 3. Basically the main thing that bugged me about this particular license was that it said, more or less, that I was only allowed to run it on a Microsoft operating system. The other thing was that, surprise surprise, I agreed to some legalese in fine print on the back page of the manual (why do they expect people besides operators to need a manual for arcade games?) by running the software.
I have never seen a EULA that performed any sort of age verification (and it would certainly be difficult if not impossible) on the person installing it, yet the courts have upheld that the EULA is a binding contract. It is illegal to enter into a binding, legal contract with a minor, and the contact itself is null and void.
This in itself may be enough to get rid of UCITA, unless the courts would then make a parent or legal guardian responsible for their child's adherence to the EULA. However, the child is still "signing" the contract and contract law forbids children to sign...this "signature" of a mouse click is worth nothing because this isn't a real signature that can be: analyzed for age (ink can be dated rather well, especially black ink), checked for forgery through handwriting analysis, or proven by the security of a true electronic signature's password requirement, tamper-protection, and mathematical correlation with a registered profile. Anyone could have "signed" the "acceptance." The mouse button could have stuck or the cat walked on the Enter key while you were on the phone with your lawyer talking about the EULA. Who knows. It's worthless, and ridiculous overturnings of hundreds of years' of legal precedence such as this just highlights how clearly UCITA was a piece of legislation that was bought and paid for, rather than created out of a legitimate need.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
Here's a good one I've only just discovered (Yes, it's the Borg again). I'm trying to build a cross-platform Java Servlet to move away from ASP, but need to build the first demo on IIS.
A dialog box; "This project requires Microsoft language extensions" and a Yes/No choice for whether to install them. FUD is courtesy of the warning "If you choose No, your project may not compile", so naturally I chose "Yes" - After all, there's no downside to doing so, or they'd have told me about it.
After that, a further dialogue box; "Use of the Microsoft language extensions for Java results in compiled code that will run only on Windows systems with the Microsoft Virtual Machine". However this time, there's only an "OK" button to confirm and even the close button on the dialog doesn't work. I'm stuffed, I now realise I really do not want this option, but I'm stuck with it.
Naturally, after this my own "language" was rather extended.
NT and 2k are supported now, but only if you buy a special hardware attachment. So basically my Datalink watch has become useless to me other than for looking at the time. I don't understand why it should be this way since it would work on my existing hardware if I still had Win 3.1 or 95 on my machine (I have the original Datalink model which I bought in '94 IIRC.) The software basically draws lines on a black background which the electric eye on watch interperets as data. This is the only part of the Datalink software that doesn't work in NT and 2k. The rest of the app works fine, but it's pretty useless if I can't transfer the data to my watch any longer.
This also reminded me of the "No Logos" discussion yesterday. One logo that I forgot I was wearing is the old Microsoft logo--and I've been wearing it every day for about 6 years now. Yuck!
numb
I'm not sure about the legal ramifications of this, but what would happen if that programmer were then sued and just lost the case on purpose? Would an appeal to a federal court be possible, with the eventual possibility of the supreme court overthrowing UCITA b/c it's unconstitutional?
This may be just a dumb idea. What do y'all say?
First of all most licenses involve something along the lines of:
"You agree not to attempt to reverse engineer, decipher or decompile the Software or otherwise reduce it to human readable form..."
Firstly I was of the impression that in Europe at least we had the right to disassemble it... can they really take that away. By the same principle that's like telling me I cant look inside a big mac that i've bought.
I also thought that if one part of a contract attempted to take a way a right I have by law then I could deem the contract invalid. Is this correct?
Secondly, I know some experienced coders who can interpret the binary data without disassembly. I've seen an, albiet small, piece of firmware written directly in hex. Since human readability is clearly subjective, if I have someone who doesn't understand asm run a disassembler on their copy of X. Can I then inspect what they thought was unreadable code?
Maybe you should try the "violent anal dilation" described here:l
http://uber.chorn.com/ds9/ds9.9706/msg00276.htm
IANAL.. but...
The reason you don't have the right of first sale (#4) is because of what they say in #1... you are not buying their software, you are liscensing it. That's how they get around having to allow you to sell the software.
---
I hope you're not pretending to be evil while secretly being good. That would be dishonest.
If you use software from Network Associates, including commercial PGP, McAfee Anti Virus, and Gauntlet firewall software, you're subject to their EULA, of course.
But these products are often (or exclusively) used in corporate networks where the end users may have no knowledge of such licenses, or even be aware of the use of that particular software. And even if you examine the license, you might not know that...
As I understand the UCITA and DMCA, you're liable in some unspecified way if you, say, are a consultant evaluating the relative performance of NAI software for a client, or if you are contributing to a software purchasing decision at a company by writing an internal review.
In some of the EULA's, there is some text about states or jurisdictions which "DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES."
Which states/jurisdictions are these?
This (somewhat relevant) bit comes from the rec.humor.funny archives. It's been floating around at least since 91.
Disclaimer to be used when purchasing software:
This check is fully warranted against physical defects and poor
workmanship in its stationery. If the check is physically damaged,
return it to me and I will replace or repair it at my discretion. No
other warranty of any kind is made, neither express nor implied
including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of Merchantability,
Suitability for Purpose, and Validity of Currency. Any and all risk
concerning the actual value of this check is assumed by you, the
recipient. Even though I or my agents may have assured you of its
worth, either verbally or in written communication, we may have had our
fingers crossed, so don't come whimpering back to me if it bounces.
The money, if any, represented by this instrument remains my property.
You are licensed to use it, however you are not allowed to copy the
original check except for your personal records, nor are you permitted
to give the money itself to anyone else. Neither may you allow any
other person to use the money. Remember, you may have it in your
possession, but it still belongs to me, and I'm going to call on you
from time to time just to keep tabs on it.
This agreement supersedes all others between us, including the equally
ridiculous one you have undoubtedly pasted on the back of your
packaging, or concealed somewhere in the middle of it. The location of
your version of this or any other covenant between us is irrelevant to
its inapplicability here. Only this one pertains, and I really mean
it. In fact, this one supersedes yours even though yours may say that
it supersedes mine. Why, even if yours said it would supersede mine
even if mine said it would supersede yours even if yours said... Oh
well. You get the idea.
You may decline this agreement by returning the uncashed check to me
within twenty-four hours. If you attempt to cash it, however, you have
implicitly accepted these terms. You may also implicitly accept these
terms by:
1) Calling my bank to inquire about the status of my account;
2) Thanking me at the conclusion of our business transaction;
3) Going to bed at the end of this or any other day; or
4) Using any toilet or rest room.
Please be advised that I have adopted a strict rubber-glue policy. Any
nasty thing that your lawyers say bounces off of me and sticks back to
you. Be further advised that you agree to pay my legal expenses if I
decide to sue you for violating this agreement or for any other reason
that might strike my fancy. Violations will be punishable by fine,
imprisonment, death, any two of the above, or all three.
Thank you and have a nice day!
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
Another related topic. It's a fairly common practice now, I call it the creeping contract. It starts out a regular contract with a clause that gives the company the right to include any new clauses, or chage existing ones at will and without prior notice or recouse for you. As some people have pointed out before, this is contrary to contract law, as all additions have to be a benifit to both parties, or is consitered invalid. But the work to get that proved is more than liklye much more than the cost of paying off such problems. I believe these open-ended contracts should be declared illegal, how can the consumer enter into an agreement, and understand, that the other party can change at any time. With open-ended contracts, EULA's, UCTA, DCMA,... it becomes more effective for the companies to write illegal contracts, and stand back and stomp on consumer rights, because they know that it will be more difficult for the consumer to appeal it than just pony up. This kind of coperate rape will not stop until there is some kind of statitory fines, and revocation for these clauses. There should also be a bounty program for turing in suspisious contracts. This will turn the tides and place the burden of proof on the companies, and their lawyers to make sure the contracts are legal and binding. Until someone places the burden on the companies, not the consumers, these broad and obvious abuses will continure to take place.
I bought an ATI Xpert 2000 a few months ago, and the driver CD was sealed with this notice: "By opening this seal, you agree to the license enclosed."
I tried to hold it up to the light, but I couldn't see through it...
Be nice to your friends. If it weren't for them, you'd be a complete stranger.
So the scary thing about these isn't just what it holds the user to, but what it fails to hold the issuer to.
--
This is not my sandwich.
He refers to BladeEnc which is another mp3 encoder.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
I find it very interesting that most of the time you pay for something, than find out that your rights are stomped on by a license you haven't had a chance of reading, and than this license concludes that you won't get anything in exchange (no warranty etc.).
Imagine buying a car under that circumstance... you won't do it, will you?
This isn't all new to you, just redundant. But I think you should not only collect stupid EULA's, but also rulings of courts in other countries.
You found a sword: +4 damage, +5 moderator points
I would much rather look up a license once or have a licence posted on the web in a neutral location (ie not on the Vendor's site) with a critique by a lawyer or government official.
Certain licenses would suit certain industries better than others and licenses for private consumers could be different than thoes for commercial companies.
The GPl is a good example of this and standardized licenses are just one of the cool and practical innovations to come out of free (speech) software and the open source movement.
"A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
Also, most have clauses now stating "You agree that any legal issues are subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Timbucktu", meaning in effect that not only are you supposed to consult a lawyer, but you have to consult one who knows the laws of Timbucktu. And you'll probably have to travel there if it comes to any legal proceedings. Just out of curiousity, which would win if the laws of the place where you live state that any such jurisdiction assignment clause is null and void?
-----
--
perl -e'$_=shift;die eval' '"$^X $0\047\$_=shift;die eval\047 \047$_\047"' at -e line 1.
I should have known better than to click that link in my office.
Lost in original post: So, if your US company has a foreign parent company. you cannot use this software (as you are ultimately under the control of a "foreign person"). Also, if you are leagally in the US on a work visa, you may not use this software in your job because you are a "foreign person", and anyone who reports to you may not use it either. Or does this fall under US export regulations? Either way, it is ridiculous and I am here to ridicule it!
Interesting point. Wouldn't that mean that anyone who tried to return Windows and didn't get their refund was no longer bound by ANY of the terms of the license, since Microsoft essentially voided the contract?
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
This doesn't concern me, since I've switched to Mozilla, but I've noticed a couple of very unusual clauses in the Communicator 4.x license agreement. Here's an exerpt:
... (ii) decompile, disassemble, reverse engineer, or otherwise attempt to derive the source code for the Product (except to the extent applicable laws specifically prohibit such restriction); ... (v) publish any results of benchmark tests run on the Product to a third party without Netscape's prior written consent.
3. RESTRICTIONS. Except as otherwise expressly permitted in this Agreement, or in another Netscape agreement to which Licensee is a party such as the CCK license agreement, the MCD license agreement or a distribution agreement, Licensee may not:
So, you are prohibited to reverse engineer or publicly benchmark communicator unless you get permission from Netscape.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
But wait! You didn't "purchase" the software, you "licensed" it. What would the price be to "purchase" all rights to WinZip?
- Carl
The Authors Note of Richard Stallman's 'The Right to Read'> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
...For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):
lists a license agreement of a Chicago university. Although I have not myself seen this agreement, I believe Mr. Stallman that it was in force then. Now? Who knows. One thing is certain though - my university could have had one much the same...
The following text is a direct quote of the Author's note
-------------------------
"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials." This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
-------------------
--My opinions belong only to me, until you realize I'm right
As much as I detest the current EULA's, no one has offered anything better. I do not understand why someone has not created a EULA that gives the ownerships and rights people are requesting. Sure, it's a significant gamble on the part of the releasing authority, but no more so than what a civil engineer or commercial aircraft engineer has to worry about when they release a product.
The competitive advantage such a license would give someone like Corel might turn out to be similar to the growth in acceptance of the GPL (I am NOT equating the two, just a statistic that would be shared by the two)! They can take an existing product, such as WordPerfect, attach a new EULA (a suggestion for Corel: make it much more open to aid in the debugging process) that applies to those who purchase a service agreement. I don't think any changeover would be immediate, but it sure would get the attention of the businesses who require that level of support. I'm betting the effect on Word and other word processor software would be profound.
Software authoring has to be the ultimate liability dodge. No one, and it sure looks like no one, will take responibility for their own software which they license to you.
Is there such a thing as a guarantee for working computers and software that have to work? Aside from software that drives the Space Shuttle that is? Could I go pay IBM several million dollars for a network system guaranteed not to fail or my money back?
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
Sorry I don't remember the name of the product, but it was impossible to read the damn EULA until you broke the shrink wrap. Of course, once you got to it, it said "By breaking the seal you agree to the following terms...".
I usually don't read the stupid thkngs anyway, does that mean I am not bound by the terms?
I was a contractor at a large medical insurance company once installing a bunch of IBM GL300s. Inside the main box is the keyboard box, and inside that was a bag with the mouse, keys, and a little piece of paper that read "By opening this box you agree to any and all liscenses for all software included on this PC and any changes to said software can violate your warrenty". I had to open the box just to get to the paper!
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
I read the part about "backdoors" being put in software to remotely diable the software in the event of piracy? I think, and I don't think I'm alone here, that the rights of big business are startting to klobber the rights of the consumer.
When you buy a car, does the dealer keep a copy of your keys in case the car is stolen? I don't think so..
When you buy a book, is there a clause that says if you photocopy it the publish has the right to burn down your house (to ensure the destruction of the infringed copyrights).
Here's my problem as a programmer. I use tools like gcc, emacs, and even msvc.. Now, the latter of msvc could easily have a EULA (shrink-wrapped of course) that tells me I have to pay Microsoft a "fee" every time I release a program. Thats not so bad... What if Microsoft revokes my licence? Ahh.. The thousands of millions of dollars that my employer has spent to develop this project using those tools has been flushed down the toilet.
Don't get me wrong... In the above example there shouldn't be a problem unless there is grounds for revoktion... like.. oh.. gee.. lets say I work for Joes Software Conglomerate that recently pointed the finger at Microsoft during the trial. We _need_ that new patch/fix for msvc but it comes at the cost of accepting a new licence (click-wrap of course) and now being screwed every which way.
Sorry about the Microsoft reference.. they're so easy to blame now.. but if weird licencing issues come in to play we may face a beast worse than the one from Redmond...
Why cant the EULA just be simple and say something like:
1. Don't copy it without our permission
2. Don't tear it apart without our permission
3. Don't blame us if it fucks up..
ahhh.. see.. all that legalese to cover up the fact that A) they don't want to be responsable for their own product and B) they want YOU liable for anything and everything you do to/with/around it.
They want an escape clause to make buggy software, another one to take control of your system, and another to screw you out of business if you compete with 'em.
What if someone hax0rz it and uses it to disable computer software at will? Because of the EULA, the original compay is not responsable - it was a but.. whoops..
Corporate America has to stop blaming consumers... we are not the problem.. I don't claim to know what the problem is, but it's not me and don't make me pay for the actions of the few.
/rant
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Point 1 says: Whatever 'features' I develop, must be handed over to the company.
Point 3 says: I may not use any handed over 'features' they choose not to include in future versions.
Am I reading that right??
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I don't have the actual CD-ROM and case in front of me right now, but I recall seeing a particularly restrictive EULA printed up in the manual for DeLorme's Street Atlas USA software.
It said something to the effect of it being a violation of the agreement to connect GPS hardware other than DeLorme's own TripMate unit to your PC and run their software with it.
This seems expecially silly when you consider that their software package not only supports the TripMate's proprietary communications protocol but is also compatible with the industry standard NMEA GPS protocol. (We designed our software so it will work with almost anyone's GPS, but don't try it or it'll violate your EULA!!)
Message Mental Nutritional Information= ==================== = =====================
/dev/null .
Serving Size: 1 message Servings Per Container: 1
===============================================
Amount Per Serving:
Ideas: 34
Original Ideas: 12
Ideas Stolen From Fatheads: 22
===============================================
Total Information: 43
Saturated Information: 27 (24 %RDA)
Unsaturated Information: 16 (16 %RDA)
Useful Information: 0 (0 %RDA)
Fiber Content: 5 g (3 %RDA) (a)
Total Comic Content: 29
Chuckles: 24 (5 %RDA)
Belly Laughs: 1 (34 %RDA)
Parodies: 3 (73 %RDA)
Puns: 1 (100 %RDA)
(a): Only if printed out and eaten.
Disclaimer: This humor does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; all rights reserved; this document is distribution copyrighted to the extent that you may distribute this posting and all its associated parts freely but you may not make a profit from it or include the posting in commercial publications without written permission from the copyright holder at the e-mail address above; further redistributions of this document or its parts are allowed via Usenet repostings, anonymous FTP, electronic transmissions, storage media, or printed copy as long as this notice is included and no monetary fee is charged; jokes are subject to change without notice; jokes are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; hand wash only, drip dry; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; anchovies or jalapenos added to jokes upon request; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; quantities are limited while supplies last; this offer is void where prohibited; humor is provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities; not responsible for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity joke employer; no shoes, no shirt, no jokes; caveat emptor; read at your own risk; parental advisory: explicit lyrics; text may contain material some readers may find objectionable; keep away from pets and small children; these jokes are not a toy; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries not included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; jokes may have settled during shipment; sealed for your protection, do not use if safety seal is broken; safety goggles may be required during use; call before you dig; use only with proper ventilation; for external use only; if a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames; do not place jokes near flammable or magnetic source; avoid inhaling fumes or contact with mucous membranes; smoking these jokes may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; joke text is made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were used to test the hilarity of these jokes; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavor added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult a humorologist; messages are ribbed for her pleasure; slippery when wet; must be 18 to enter; possible penalties for early withdrawal; one size fits all; joke offer valid only at participating sites; slightly higher west of the Rockies; allow four to six weeks for delivery; if defects are discovered, do not try to fix them yourself, but return to an authorized service center; disclaimer does not cover tornado, flood, hurricane, lightning, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, and other Acts of God, misuse, neglect, unauthorized repair, damage from improper installation, typos, misspelled words, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered signatures, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, customer adjustments that are not covered in the warranty, and incidents owing to motor vehicle accidents, airplane crash, ship sinking, leaky roof, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, broken glass, flying projectiles, or dropping the item; other restrictions may apply. If something offends you, lighten up, get a life,and move on. Send all flames to
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
After reading the Slashdot Fighting UCITA thread and how Maryland passed the bill, a month ago I wrote my Maryland House Delegate, Kumar P. Barve , a main writer/sponsor of the bill and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Science and Technology.
He read the Slashdot thread and emailed me back that most of the anti-UCITA article references in the thread were old and threw down a very polite gauntlet: what specific provisions of the Maryland UCITA bill are objectionable? He said if he agrees with any objections and reasoning behind them, he would happily sponsor changes. Here's a link to the final bill as signed by the governor of Maryland. How about a little "open source" review of the bill by Slashdot readers to help clean up this bill?
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
The Disclaimer
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
C. PBI reserves the right to suspend or terminate the Service to you, or to suspend or terminate any userID, electronic mail address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, in the event it is used in a manner which (i) ... (iv) tends to damage the name or reputation of PBI, its parent, affiliates and subsidiaries; or (v) ... .
Their Acceptable Use Policy is explicit about this:
Supposedly, Internet service is provided by an "unregulated subsidiary" of the regulated telco, but there's very limited separation between the two on their web site. They both use the "pacbell.net" domain, for example.
I not so long ago installed real player on my machine to check out a stream of a demo of a new game that was coming out. I don't remember the exact wording but what I remember that really ticked me off was that in the "basic" install of real player that i downloaded it "included" this freakin Download Daemon. I didn't have the option of NOT installing it if i wanted to install real player. upon reading the EULA for the download daemon (yes, on ocassion I actualy read the bloody things) It mentioned that the download daemon WOULD RECORD information regarding the download and transmit that information to real networks. Since i really wanted to see this stream I said, what ever, I'll just uninstall that after i install the player. Since then every time I log on a freakin "DD" icon appears in my systray and there are no options that I can find to uninstall JUST the download daemon. I can, thankfully, "Unload" the daemon by right clicking on the icon in the systray but every now and then when I d/l something through my browser the little F____ pops up to do the download. What really bugs me about this is that they included this Other, completely non-relevant piece of software with the player, and that software's sole purpose in my view is to provide real networks personal information about me, my computer and what i download and that i do NOT have the option of using/not using it if I want to use the player. The daemon is not integrated in any way with the player. Just my own little rant...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
I've often wondered about these liability waivers as I've been working as a software developer. My feeling is that no matter how well I build the product I'm responsible for, I would still need a fairly broad liability waiver in the license. There are too many aspects involved in running the piece of software that I would produce that are outside of my control. How can I provide a strong warranty for my customer when the OS, the compilers, the debugging tools, the 3rd party libraries I link with, etc. all may have their own set of problems with their own waivers. Any warranty that I could allow for in my license would have so many restrictions as to make it nearly useless and a nightmare to litigate.
(i) violate, plagiarize, or infringe upon the rights of any third party, including copyright, trademark, privacy or other personal or proprietary rights; or
(ii) contain libelous or otherwise unlawful material; and (b) that you are at least thirteen years old.
You hereby indemnify, defend and hold harmless NYTD and NYT WEB, and all officers, directors, owners, agents, information providers, affiliates, licensors and licensees (collectively, the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any and all liability and costs, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by the Indemnified Parties in connection with any claim arising out of any breach by you or any user of your account of this Agreement or the foregoing representations, warranties and covenants. You shall cooperate as fully as reasonably required in the defense of any such claim. NYTD reserves the right, at its own expense, to assume the exclusive defense and control of any matter subject to indemnification by you.
I once wrote to the Times about this, and they told me that if I didn't like it I could subscribe to the print edition.
I seem to recall that I saw a notice some time ago, around when Windows 2000 was being released, that MS was changing their licensing for their server type products. These changes specifically addressed the rise in internet-based network connections. Note, the Windows 2000 license stuff applies to "Authenticated Users" .. so anon web browsing doesn't count (for your *cough* Windows 2000 web server *cough*) .. but if your users actually log in to the site using server-based authentication, bingo... license time.
NT's licensing can be set up connection based, but this only applied to local LAN type connections. Under the new Windows 2000 server licensing, even connections through the internet (as MS states: for use of server services -- file/print/remote services) must be licensed. As stated in the original post, it is rather difficult to properly license your internet users, so MS made available general licenses to use their products on the internet. Thus, the Internet Connector License. A flat-rate license to allow your server product to accept internet connections. Otherwise known as the "Microsoft Gouging for More Money License".
As I recall, this was going to be a new standard deal from them. The Windows 2000 Pricing and Licensing FAQ has info on this. You can, of course, choose to license on a standard per-user basis for a smaller userlist.
The specific FAQ entry for the SQL connection is the last one, quoted here:
Q: How does this license relate to Microsoft SQL Server? If I use server authentication with SQL Server, will I need a Windows 2000 Internet Connector as well as a Site Server Commerce Internet Connector?
Yes, if SQL ServerTM is used in server authentication mode, then Windows 2000 CALs or Windows 2000 Internet Connector (for authenticated Internet applications) are required. If SQL Server is used in non-authenticated mode (in other words, does not use server authentication), then Windows 2000 CALs or an Internet Connector license is not required.
Zzyzzx
NOTE: Modifications to any of the components in this kit will void the user's authority to operate this equipment.
WTF? Is this not my x10 module?
: ... Note that the license for the free version of Solaris prevents us from
: publishing these benchmarks without clearance from Sun.
This was in the context of some home-brewed benchmarks we were running on various machines. This may not be as insidious as others, but one can only speculate as to why such a clause was invoked in their EULA.
- Pat.-- This
Microsoft still has not given anyone a refund for windows, depite the clause in their eula that clearly states they will.
Also, although sun says I can install the software on as many computers as I want, the Solaris EULA says one computer only and no copies.
GPL'd software often comes with a standard eula saying you can only run on one computer, cannot copy, reverse engineer, etc. The Maximum Linux CD set is one of these BTW, contained copies of Storm Linux and Mandrake 7, but says copyright [publisher of maximum linux] and you cannot copy, distribute, reverse engineer, install on more than one computer.
Lots of free, shareware, and otherwise ubiquitous software comes like that. Heck every time you download patches from Microsoft, or Service Packs, you must sign another EULA with similar restrictions. So I can't patch more than one computer? Of course not! And what if they throw in a clause like "You must give 10% of your income or your firstborn to Microsoft." I mean what if I don't agree to the terms? This means that even though I agreed to a eula to run the OS/software I cannot get fixes for the bugs in it?
Sounds pretty stupid to me.
This license "agreement" shipped with a version of Worldcraft, a Quake (and others) map editor published by Activision. This sort of shameless, wholesale, unjustifiable theft of our rights must not be allowed to continue. There is absolutely no legitimate, defensible reason for shrinkwrap "licenses" to exist at all.
This "license" is a couple of years old. I do not know if Worldcraft still ships with this abomination. My commentary appears in italics (but remember, I Am Not A Lawyer).
_______________________________________________
Software License Agreement Summary:
The use of this software is subject to the terms of the Software License Agreement below. You must accept the Software License Agreement before you can use Level Utilities. The Level Utilities are provided strictly for your personal use. The use of the Level Utilities is subject to additional license restrictions contained in the Software License Agreement and may not be commercially exploited.
SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY: THE LEVEL PROCESSING UTILITIES (THE "LEVEL UTILITIES") FOR USE WITH HEXEN II (THE "PROGRAM") ALLOWS YOU TO CREATE CUSTOMIZED NEW GAME LEVELS AND OTHER RELATED GAME MATERIALS FOR PERSONAL USE IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROGRAM ("NEW GAME MATERIALS"). THE USE OF THE LEVEL UTILTIES IS SUBJECT TO THE SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS SET FORTH BELOW. BY USING THE LEVEL UTILTIES, YOU ARE CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY AND ARE BECOMING A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT WITH ACTIVISION, INC. ("ACTIVISION"). IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, DO NOT USE THE UTILITIES AND COMPLETELY REMOVE THEM FROM YOUR COMPUTER AND YOUR POSESSION.
LIMITED USE LICENSE. Activision grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right to use the Level Utilities for the purpose of creating New Game Materials solely and exclusively for personal use. For purposes of this Agreement, "New Game Materials" represent computer data that modifies, substitutes for or adds new materials to the materials currently contained in the Product, thus modifying or replacing one or more existing game levels and other constituent elements provided in the Product.[[ Note that, as worded, this sentence encompasses levels that are devoid of any of Activision's property, containing artwork and geometry that is completely original with you. ]]
You shall not create New Game Materials, or tools that have no substantial purpose other than to contribute to the creation of New Game Materials, except as expressly permitted pursuant to this Agreement.
[[ Pay close attention to that one. Not only are you precluded from distributing New Game Materials commercially, you are precluded from developing a competing level editor (possibly one with a less draconian license). ]]
All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by Activision and, as applicable, its licensors. The Level Utilities are licensed, not sold. Your license and the use of the Level Utilities confers no title or ownership in the Level Utilities or the New Game Materials created using the Level Utilities and should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Level Utilities or such New Game Materials.
OWNERSHIP.
All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Level Utilities and the New Game Materials created by you using the Construction Kit are owned by Activision or its licensors and are protected by the copyright laws of the United States, international copyright treaties and conventions and other laws. In the event that you should, by operation of law, be deemed to retain any rights in any New Game Materials created by you, you, by using the Level Utilities, hereby irrevocably assign, without any further consideration and regardless of any use by Activision of such New Game Materials, all of your rights and interest, if any, in and to such New Game Materials to Activision. You also hereby grant Activision an irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free license to exercise any rights, including moral rights, to any and all aspects of the New Game Materials. You agree that Activision shall have the full and complete right to package, publish, print, copy, promote, market, distribute, transfer and display the New Game Materials created by you and prepare derivative works based upon such New Game Materials, and any derivative works thereof, anywhere throughout the world.
LICENSE CONDITIONS.
You agree that as a condition to Activision's consent to allow you to use the Level Utilities, you will not use or allow third parties to use the Level Utilities and the New Game Materials created by you for commercial purposes, including but not limited to selling, renting, leasing, licensing, distributing, or otherwise transferring the ownership of such New Game Materials, whether on a stand alone basis or packaged in combination with the New Game Materials created by others, through any and all distribution channels, including, without limitation, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution. You agree not to solicit, initiate or encourage any proposal or offer from any person or entity to create any New Game Materials for commercial distribution. You agree to promptly inform Activision in writing of any instances of your receipt of any such proposal or offer.
If you decide to make available the use of the New Game Materials created by you to your friends, family, co-workers and other fellow gamers, you agree to do so solely without charge.
You shall create New Game Materials only if such New Game Materials can be used exclusively in combination with the retail version of the Product. The New Game Materials may not be designed to be used as a stand-alone product.
New Game Materials shall not contain modifications to any COM, EXE or DLL files or to any other executable Product files.
New Game Materials must not contain any illegal, obscene or defamatory materials,
[[ So much for a South Park level... ]]
materials that infringe rights of privacy and publicity of third parties or (without appropriate irrevocable licenses granted specifically for that purpose) any trademarks, copyright-protected works or other properties of third parties.
New Game Materials must contain prominent identification at least in any on-line description and with reasonable duration on the opening screen: (a) the name and E-mail address of the New Game Materials' creator(s) and (b) the words "THIS MATERIAL IS NOT MADE OR SUPPORTED BY ACTIVISION."
You will not use the Level Utilities to reverse engineer, extract source code, modify, decompile or disassemble the Program, in whole or in part.
TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights of Activision, this Agreement will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with its terms and conditions. In such event, you must immediately discontinue the use of the Level Utilities and any New Game Materials created using the Level Utilities.
INJUNCTION. Because Activision would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this Agreement were not specifically enforced,
[[ Shyeah, right... ]]
you agree that Activision shall be entitled, without bond, other security or proof of damages,
[[ Wait, no proof of damages? I should just take your word for it? ]]
to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this Agreement, in addition to such other remedies as Activision may otherwise have under applicable laws.
INDEMNITY. You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Activision, its partners, licensors, affiliates, contractors, officers, directors, employees and agents (specifically including, but not limited to, Id Software, inc., and Raven Software, inc.) harmless from all damages, losses and expenses arising directly or indirectly from your acts and omissions to act in using the Level Utilities pursuant to the terms of this Agreement
MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement represents the complete agreement concerning this license between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and representations between them. It may be amended only by a writing executed by both parties.
[[ It may be enacted, however, by you installing the program... ]]
If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected. This Agreement shall be construed under California law as such law is applied to agreements between California residents entered into and to be performed within California, except as governed by federal law and you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Los Angeles, California.
If you have any questions concerning this license, you may contact Activision at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California90405, (310) 255-2000, Attn. Business and Legal Affairs, legal@activision.com
Hexen II(tm) ©1997 Raven Software Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Id Software, Inc. software code contained within Hexen II(tm) © 1996 Id Software, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Developed by Raven Software Corporation. Published by Id Software, Inc. Distributed by Activision, Inc. under sublicense. Hexen® is a registered trademark and Hexen II(tm) is a trademark of Raven Software Corporation. The Id Software name and the id logo are trademarks of Id Software, Inc. Activision® is a registered trademark of Activision, Inc. All other trademarks and trade names are the properties of their respective companies.
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
1.Our Rights: You hereby grant to us the right to distribute and use, on a non-exclusive basis, anywhere and everywhere in the universe, in any media, any sound recordings, compositions, pictures, videos, song lyrics and/or other content (collectively, the "Content") submitted by you to us. We shall have the right to use, market, store, distribute, reproduce, display, perform, transmit and promote the Content on a non-exclusive basis in any way we see fit (for example, as part of a site advertising campaign or marketing promotion) without payment to you. We may therefore, without payment to you, reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display and digitally perform and/or distribute the Content in whole or in part, alone or together with other material, on all media (including but not limited to CDs, the internet, other web sites, television and radio), and in any format by any means now known or hereafter devised (including but not limited to MP3, Real Audio, and Liquid Audio). No, that was not a run-on sentence. We will not, however, sell or license your Content to others (unless you sign a recording agreement with us). You agree that making your Content available to the public through our web site, the distribution of promotional CDs, and any other distribution or any use for promotional or marketing activity is not a "sale or license." We shall also have the right to use the Content in order to promote our products and services and to use the name, likeness and biographical material and any logos, marks or trade names of you or any individuals performing in your band or otherwise represented in the Content or the artist or band included or referred to in the Content without any payment to you or any other persons or companies. We reserve the right to publish new policies concerning the services provided by us and Content to be submitted by you, and you agree to comply with those policies.
Very cute- 'we don't have to pay you for anything for web distribution, as long as it is not sale or license, but you agree that any other distribution or use is ALSO not sale or license'
2.Ownership of Content: You retain full ownership of and all right, title, and interest in and to the Content, including any related copyrights, subject to the non-exclusive rights granted to us under this agreement. As this is a non-exclusive agreement, you are free to grant similar rights to others at any time, subject to this license, even after you agree to be bound by this agreement.
relatively unboobytrapped- for what good it'll do you. Note you aren't allowed to say farmclub uses your material- see below 3.Your Guarantees to Us: By accepting this agreement, you represent and warrant (that is, you guarantee to us) that: (a) you are of legal age to enter into contracts (you're not a minor). If any member of your group is a minor, you hereby warrant that you have the legal right to execute this agreement on behalf of the minor artist and have obtained all necessary consents and guarantee such person's performance of the terms of this agreement; (b) you have full right and power to enter into and perform this agreement, and have secured all third party consents necessary to enter into this agreement and to submit the Content as provided herein; (c) the Content is your or your band's own original work, and contains no sampled or replayed material or material otherwise created by someone who is neither you nor your band unless, prior to uploading the Content, you have obtained a license permitting the use as provided in this agreement of such sampled, replayed, or other material from the original author and/or performer and the current copyright proprietor of such material and/or the copyright proprietor of the underlying work; (d) the Content does not and will not infringe on any third party's intellectual property or other proprietary rights, or rights of publicity or privacy; (e) the Content does not and will not violate any law; (f) the Content is not and will not be defamatory, libelous, pornographic or obscene; (g) the Content does not and will not contain any viruses or other information which may damage or otherwise interfere with our computer systems or data or that of our visitors or other users; (h) all factual assertions that you have made and will make to us are true and complete.
You shall be fully responsible for any violation of your agreements including the representations and warranties made in this paragraph, and you agree to indemnify and hold us and our customers harmless from any and all damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys fees, arising out of or related to your breach of the representations and warranties described in this section. You are solely responsible for all licensing, reporting and payment obligations of all kinds in connection with the Content, its distribution and use (including but not limited to union or guild payments and any other third party payments of any kind). You agree to execute and deliver documents to us that we may request to confirm our rights under this agreement.
If we get in trouble you pay the lawyers- you are responsible for everything, we are responsible for nothing- oh, and if we ask for papers from you to prove we're not responsible for something, cough 'em up. But wait, there's more!
4.Managing Content and Disclaimers: In order to organize the music on our site for visitors, or for promotional or other permitted uses under this agreement, we will categorize Content that you submit to us. If we make an error in good faith in categorization or presentation of your Content, your sole and exclusive remedy will be for us to take all reasonable steps to promptly correct the error as soon as we become aware of it. That said, we have no obligation to review, edit or monitor any Content. We shall also have the right to review your Content and in our discretion, edit, alter, decline to post or remove any of the Content at any time and for any reason.
You acknowledge that our web site may from time to time encounter problems and may not necessarily continue uninterrupted without technical or other errors, and we shall not be responsible to you or others for any such interruptions, errors or problems or an outright discontinuation of our service.
TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, WE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT WITH RESPECT TO OUR SITE AND ANY SERVICES PROVIDED BY US.
We have no express or implied obligation to promote or distribute the Content in any particular manner or in any minimum quantities. Also, we make no representation nor warranty regarding your chances of getting a record deal with Jimmy and Doug's Farmclub.com nor the terms of such a recording agreement.
You do not have and we expressly shall not provide you the right to use any of our trademarks, copyrights or other proprietary information or property in connection with any activity, or to create any implied endorsement by us of you, unless authorized by us in our sole discretion in writing in advance.
We get to edit your music if you want. Suck it up and deal. Also we don't have to do anything for you at all, and don't even have to keep our website up and running. Oh, and don't go around IMPLYING that we ENDORSE you or anything! Know your place!
5.Termination: At any time 120 days after the date you first upload Content onto our web site, you may choose to terminate this agreement for that Content by sending an e-mailed request to removemusic@farmclub.com. Once we have received your timely request, we will delete the materials you identify to us as yours (e.g., songs and band records) from our system. Of course, we will not be responsible for, and need not take any steps to withdraw or terminate the future distribution of, any copies of any of your Content that may have been distributed (including by download) by us or from our web site before we removed your Content. Furthermore, Content submitted for purposes of ratings by Farmclub.com visitors will be removed from the listener ratings portion of our web site at the conclusion of a ratings cycle, although the Content will remain in Farm Club's system in the Jukebox until you have provided us a termination request as described above. We retain the right to continue any and all promotions containing Content, in whole or in part, initiated prior to the termination date. We reserve the right to terminate this agreement at any time by so notifying you; the agreement will terminate upon your actual receipt of our notice to you or three days after we have sent a notice of termination to the e-mail address which you supply to us in the registration portion of our web site.
You're stuck with us for 120 days no matter what. Then if you want to get out, you have to specify EVERY bit of material that you want us to stop using- except that if the material is being used for 'rating' by site visitors, tough luck, we keep it until the 'rating cycle' is over- oh, and if we started any sort of promotion, tough- we'll continue that as long as we want. Oh- and _we_ get to terminate you at any time on a maximum of three days notice whether or not you recieve our e-mail notice. But wait, there's more!
6.Damages: Except for a breach of Section 3 of this agreement, neither you nor we will be liable for any consequential, indirect, exemplary, special or incidental damages arising from or relating to this agreement (including, without limitation, damages for loss of business profits, business interruption, loss of business information, or other pecuniary loss).
nobody's responsible, now read on...
7.Miscellaneous: This agreement shall be governed by California law, and all legal proceedings, if any, shall take place in California. This agreement sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and us and supersedes all previous agreements, communications, oral or written, between you and us. You represent that you have carefully read this agreement, that you understand its contents, and that you have had an opportunity to seek independent legal advice regarding the advisability of entering into this agreement. Whew! Enough mind-bending legalese. Let's post some music! Click the "I Agree" below if you agree to be bound by this agreement.
Guess what- by reading this and clicking through, you agree that you had a chance to seek legal advice about this horrific agreement, and chose NOT to! So you can't even weasel out by claiming you had no lawyer- you agree that you had plenty of opportunity and decided to represent yourself! See you in court, sunshine...
end agreement
I claim bragger's rights as the finder of the _worst_ clickthrough agreement on the Net :P to make matters worse, go and check out their 'summary' of this sometime. They encourage people to read the (legally meaningless) summary and skip the fine print. The summary doesn't even hint at all this garbage... evil, just evil evil evil...
1. The Product is licensed, not sold.
... If you wish to ... use the Product for more than one session on a particular computer, you must <b>purchase separate copies</b> of the Product for each such computer or session. </i>
<i>3.
If the Product is not sold, how can I purchase it?
The wording of this contract invalidates itself.
I've never used their software. Can I just make up some benchmarks? Or publish reviews based on information pulled out of thin air? Like, if I said that PGP took 4 hours to encrypt a file and GPG took 2 seconds, would that be OK?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Skimming through your comments:Well, yes.That's not what it says. It says that you can't run the program in more than one session at a time. Granted, that's a little vague, but most of us know what it means: You can't dodge the license by installing one copy on a multi-user Un*x system, and letting two hundred people use it at once. Oh, and as far as installing it on more than one computer, that's a standard feature of almost every license. (Although I notice that recent Microsoft licenses often let you install the program on both a desktop and a notebook.)Every license includes that clause. It's probably unenforceable.Again, every proprietary license that I've ever read includes that clause. Whether it's enforceable or not remains to be seen."Standard legal stuff" indeed. So why did you post it?
MSK
First, has anyone ever decided to catalog as many EULAs they could find? Something like eula.org or even eulabuse.org would be rather informative..
Second, and kinda offtopic, I used to run a DOS BBS that was at one time harboring, ahem, certain 'evaluation copies' of commercial software. One of the things that was popular at the time was to put a discliamer but before someone could apply to be a user that stated roughly 'If you are any way associated with law enforcement you must disconnect and erase all known references to this BBS'... doesn't it seem like an individual could use their own personal EULA to protect their freedom?
My new catch phrase is: "I NEED A NEW CATCH PHRASE, BABY!"
www.oldmanmurray.com/images/cgw.gif
OK, with that disclaimer out of the way, here goes. EULAs are not written with the specific intent to harm the consumer or certainly to upset the end user. EULAs exist to protect companies intellectual property from other companies. Companies do steal technology and ideas from eahc other. Yes, I said steal. Its a cut throat world these days and some people will resort to any measures they can to get an edge. To a much smaller extent, some provisions in a EULA exist to protect those same companies from the incredibly litigous world we live in now, and the never ending stream of ridiculous lawsuits that customers bring against companies (ie, the McDonalds coffee case and others). Its a sign of the times basically.
Even the GPL contains provisions (the no warranty clause) that are there to protect the authors of the software from endusers. Now, some EULAs contain clauses which are down right absurd, but you have to look at the intent behind these clauses and who it is that is writing them: LAWYERS!
Its a catch 22 situation (much like the awful situtation with patents) where you need powerful laws and ridiculously strong EULAs to fight back against the equally powerful lawyers out there to protect a companies hard work. PErsonally, I think alot of the problems would be solved if all companies were required by law to open source all their software. That way, the issue of stealing code from one company would be mitigated because you could not keep it a secret any more. It would also make it easier to determine if a patent is really unique (peer review) and if the reverse engineering methods used were truly legit. It would also be better for consumers and business because you could make your software work with other software more easily.
In short, the whole situation, like patents, is feeding on itself and the only solution is not to expect companies to make their EULAs more friendly to end users, but to get the laws rewritten so many of the clauses in EULAs are illegal and to do something truly revolutionary, like make open sourcing a legal requirement for ALL software, if you want to see any real change.
Until something dramatic happens, expect the laws to get worse and worse and the EULAs to get more and more draconian.
--
Python
Python
I will simply takes the excellent idea that Kent Lundberg had in Technocrat to use the fact that fair use still exist for books and quote Good Omens (from Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman, excellent book):
Along with the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive advertisements said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighborhood, 4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it, this was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches. Crowley had been extremely impressed with the warranties offered by the computer industry, and had in fact sent a bundle Below to the department that drew up the Immortal Soul agreements, with a yellow memo form attached just saying: "Learn, guys."
-- a footnote from Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett in "Good Omens" (Crowley is one of the main characters, and a servant of Hell).
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
So if someone is secretly being manipulated by the Gnomes of Zurich, they can't legally use WordPerfect? Well, since it's impossible to tell if anyone is being manipulated by a large multinational conspiracy, or even if you're being manipulated without your knowledge, I'd say this clause is unenforceable.
---
Zardoz has spoken!
Oper on the Nightstar
Upon registration, you must select a password. You may not disclose your password to any third party.
most things about passwords are saying soemthing like "you should not", not may not, but the next line is funner:
We never ask you for your password by telephone or email, and you should not disclose it this way if someone asks you to do so.
self contradictory, eh? and then the next line...
There may be an additional charge to reissue lost passwords. Although we may offer a feature that allows you to "save" or "remember" your password on your hard drive, please note that third parties may be able to access your computer and thus your Account.
so if anyone cracks into your system, you will be breaking the agreement? thats funny. . . .
- wafer NOTICE=Do not send copyrighted information other than the specifically requested document and it's components. Note especially, license conditions (copyright or otherwise) on cookies or other information not normally visible and not specifically requested are not agreed to
- wafer COPYRIGHT=Personal information contained herein is exclusively for use in the requested transaction. All other rights are reserved. Any other use is forbidden without written consent.
- wafer CONDITIONS=NOTICE: By responding to this request, you agree that the requester is not bound by any terms and conditions other than that which they expressly greed to.
Since they agreed to my conditions first, they're terms and conditions are null and void. If they sue me for violating there conditions, they're going to have to produce web logs which include these wafers indicating that they have no right to sue me....By closing this browser window; or by submitting payment information through the Service; or by accessing any portion of the ibill web-site, you agree that you have read, understand, and agree to abide by this Agreement, and any documents incorporated by reference, and you agree that you intend to form a legally binding contract; and that this Agreement constitutes "a writing signed by You" under any applicable law or regulation.
But aren't most of the legislators (non-practicing) lawyers themselves?
kren
krenshala
Leave the web/CF machine on the net just like normal. Add a second interface to that machine (or the CF machine if it's another box.) Assign that new interface to one of the reserved nets (ie. 10.0.0.0) and put the M$$QL$erver on that same subnet. Voila! M$$QL$erver is not being used online. It's being used on a private unroutable network. :)
.enjoy
Slashdot denizens:
Write a killer trojan/worm/virus but put a license agreement in it. Have it play a stupid animation or something, you know the suckers out there love that crap. Have a pop up box that clears you of any responsibility, then have it infect every binary it can find, send itself to every email address on the hard drive, and start a DOS attack against www.microsoft.com. No problem, right? All you wrote was an animation, there must have been a couple of bugs though...
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
A great (IMHO) online comic... but check out
;-)
the most recent series, entitled "Fine Print".
Today's (June 9th) is part 5; part 1 is at
http://www.ubersoft.net/d/20000605.html.
Yes, it's funny. But it's also very accurate.
Show this to anyone who doesn't get it.
Yahoo last year changed their terms of service for Geocities pages to give them non-exclusive rights to do anything they wanted with any content anyone put onto a geocities page. The outcry (despite their protests that "we aren't claiming ownership!") forced them to revise the TOS to give them more limited rights. Here's one story on the incident: http://www.internetnews.com/wd-news/article/0,2171 ,10_148971,00.html And another: http://209.52.189.2/article.cfm/writing_on_Web_Sit e/22295 (this one is more to the point)
The mere exchange of money between you and licensor creates no contractual relationship.
This in a more or less standard paragraph saying that opening the package consitutes agreeing to the license.
You agree to at all time (sic) maintain records specifically identifying the Software and the location of the copy thereof. Such records shall be subject to inspection by Licensor [or his rep] during regular business hours upon reasonable advance notice for the purpose of enforcement of the terms and conditions of this License Agreement.
This particular software package is moderatley high dollar and only used by a QA department, so it's not a big burden.
Standard ban on reverse engineering.
You agree that you will not assign, sublicense, transfer, pledge, lease, rent or share your rights under this License Agreement.
So much for "first sale doctrine".
If any action is brought by either party to this License Agreement against the other party regarding the subject matter hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover, in addition to any other relief granted, reasonable attorniey fees and expenses of litigation.
And a bunch of more or less standard stuff - liability limitation, severability, failure to enforce is not a permanent waiver, etc. As EULAs go, not too bad overall...
I have noticed in these postings and reading elsewhere that websites with EULAs pretty much all say that you may not download and electronically store or redistribute the contents of their site. Therefore, proxy servers and local caching of the pages is clearly a violation of storage and redistribution. Also, here is a quote from Intuit's terms and conditions of use for their web site: */ quote User Conduct On the Service: While using the Web site, you may not: Restrict or inhibit any other user from using and enjoying the Service; Post or transmit any unlawful, fraudulent, libelous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, profane, threatening, abusive, hateful, offensive, or otherwise objectionable information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or otherwise violate any local, state, national or foreign law, including without limitation the U.S. export control laws and regulations; or Post or transmit any advertisements, solicitations, chain letters, pyramid schemes, investment opportunities or schemes or other unsolicited commercial communication (except as otherwise expressly permitted by Intuit) or engage in spamming or flooding; or Post or transmit any information or software which contains a virus, trojan horse, worm or other harmful component; or Post, publish, transmit, reproduce, distribute or in any way exploit any information, software or other material obtained through the Service for commercial purposes (other than as expressly permitted by the provider of such information, software or other material); or Post, publish, transmit, reproduce, or distribute in any way, information, software or other material obtained through the Service which is protected by copyright, or other proprietary right, or derivative works with respect thereto, without obtaining permission of the copyright owner or rightholder; or Upload, post, publish, reproduce, transmit or distribute in any way any component of the Service itself or derivative works with respect thereto, as the Service is copyrighted as a collective work under U.S. copyright laws. */ So if an unsuspecting surfer's unnamed email client is forwarding Melissa around, they are violating this agreement. How is this remotely enforceable? Why should they care? I wonder how many legal purveyors of pornography keep their financial records in line using Quickbooks. What would Intuit do if they knew? Of course, my posting this is a violation in retrospect, but my local cache and proxy already stored it, so....
From the license in Cute MX:
4. STATISTICS. GlobalSCAPE may keep statistics regarding your use of the SOFTWARE (e.g., IP address, directory listings, number of daily unique users, average sessions per user, average session time, certain system information, daily ad displays and ad click-through).
I like the part about certain system information and directory listings. Sounds like they can poke around the old hard drive for anything of interest.
Just write "I [your name] am exempt from any clause that I object to in any EULA. Total ownership of my copy of software is hereby transfered and permanently retained by [your name]. [Company] is liable for any damages, to myself or anyone else, that occur as a result of this software. Reading this agreement implies consent to its terms." on a piece of paper, then send it to whoever you own software from. This is about as fair as most of the EULAs I've read.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Try downloading Vigor! :-)
This one came on the outside of the cardboard-
- --
box containing all the Windoze CD's, manuals,
mouse and power cord that came with my
Gateway2000 machine. Here is the exact text
of the label which I had to tear in order to
open the box:
-----------------------------------------------
spec.A01 6/10/98
ATTENTION!!
Before turning on your system, carefully read
the license agreement(s) included with your software.
By turning on your system, you indicate
acceptance of the license agreement(s).
-----------------------------------------------
The fun part about this one is that I bought this
machine with the sole intention of running Linux
on it. I booted it from a SuSE Linux CD-ROM and
immediately reformatted the hard drive - thus
erasing all of whatever Windoze/Gateway crud
was on there - without running a single byte
of that code. All the CD's are still in their
shrinkwrapped jewel boxes - unopened.
The point is that I *STILL* had to accept all
the dumb M$ license agreements simply in order
to apply power to the box!
That's silly!
The first critical issue is that it does not appear that I am allowed (as is protected by fair use laws, if I understand them) to make a backup copy of the software. If the CD is not required to run, I have to keep the CD itself as my only backup. This is hardly a "backup"-- I don't think that keeping only the original of something could be construed by anyone to constitute a backup. The paragraph in question:
And, of course, there is also the disclaimer that Microsoft is not liable for anything that should go wrong with their product. This application is simply a document set for training, and as such should be very straightforward. The *ONLY* thing I can think of that could go wrong with something so simple is an "interruption of business" if it fails to function as advertised-- yet Microsoft disclaims any liability for this! I couldn't help laughing (morbid humor, I guess...) at the section that restricts Microsoft's entire liability in this matter to US $5.00 or the cost of the software. My earlier post about an IBM license agreement pointed out a similar restriction, but at least IBM set their bar at $100,000.00. The section I am referring to:
One more for the road, guys. This paragraph bothers me because if the software is "likely to become" the subject of an infringement claim "in their opinion", they can revoke your license. These two conditions combined add up to "whenever sun wants", since you don't have to be either actually infringing at the present time or actually planning to infringe in the future. They merely have to say that you are to take your Java away. The paragraph in question is below, and comes from sun's web site when downloading the Java 2 SDK, Standard Edition 1.3.0.
7. Termination. Sun may terminate this Agreement immediately should any Software become, or in Sun's opinion be likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement of a patent, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property right.
This warning is pretty standard. It basicly says that this computer isn't yours and if you don't like it go away. It sounds a little harsh, but it does allow site operators to monitor and stop harmful behavior on their systems. If it wasn't there the legal paperwork would be a nightmare. If you have a legitimate reason form using the resources these restrictions are harmless. It is only around for those who have no reason for using the resources what so ever.
By reading this comment you agree to the following terms and conditions:
1. 35% of your salary must be given to the Zeusjr Fund Society, whether or not such a society exists, before the 15th of April each year.
2. You agree to obey all the laws and statutes dictated by the Zeusjr Fund Society, which may change at any time and take retroactive effect.
3. While some members of the Zeusjr Fund Society receive the Zeusjr Fund once they have reached a certain age, you must not expect any such funds for yourself.
4. You cannot leave the Zeusjr Fund Society once you have joined. Anyone born inside the Zeusjr Fund Society's geographical borders are automatically members of the Zeusjr Fund Society.
5. You agree to the preceding terms and conditions, as interpreted by elite members of the Zeusjr Fund Society.
Please to have you aboard!,
Zeusjr, of the Zeusjr Fund Society
a regestered letter that starts out: By signing the Regestered Mail Receipt, the receipent agrees to sign over all Intellectual Property Rights permanently and in total to the Free Software Foundation for the purposes of relicensing or disposal as seen fit by the FSF. Receipent also agrees to fire all senior management employees, to resign from MS, and transfer all shares of MS stock personally held by the receipent to the FSF. Note: This letter is as legally valid as any MS EULA.
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
Someone tell me the logic of this one:
Companies such as NetZero offer free download of their software. In this case, they're distributing their ad-based "free" Internet access program. Now, since it's 1) free and 2) available for anybody and everybody to download at will, explain why the software's EULA prohibits the user from giving a copy of the software to their friends! Anybody?
--
The real Captain Derivative has a Slashdot ID.
This does not at all explain why they all have clauses along the lines of "no implied merchantability or fitness..." and "not to be considered a 'good' under Uniform Commercial Code..."
Nor does it explain the bizarre restrictions on use and copying, which seldom do the competition any good.
These clauses seem entirely about creating a special world for software: it can't be liable for performance like a good, it can't be resold like copyrighted material, it can't be reverse engineered like trade secrets, it's details need not be made public like patents, it need not be protected like trademarks. In short, any inconveniences due to the rights of anyone but the publisher are utterly discarded.
By the way, does anyone know who started some of these now-common EULA clauses? My money is on Gates, as he is the high priest of abusing intellectual property to monetary advantage.
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Yeah, and I could vote for a random brain dead dog in an alley too.
Ignorance feeds on ignorance.
Fortunately you can go to the Linux community and get help for free.
What, there isn't a Microsoft community? Or is the Microsoft community mean, and so, as a whole, it doesn't help people?
On top of that, just cause MS isn't obligated to provide you support doesn't mean that it doesn't. The MSDN database, for instance, completely documents accessible APIs and is totally public. Or their support database, which actually tracks user bugs and can be quite convenient.
Mike Greenberg
http://www.yourmothernaked.com
I'm glad he did, more people are likely to read it on slashdot. Many people have pointed out how the authors attempt to shed all of their responsibilities while artificially restricting your ability and right to do what you want with your own computers. What better way than to quote the thing in it's entirety? People bored at work will actually read this thing. Good for everyone.
Now for some fun. Can you imagine a car maker saying, "You and only you are autorized to use this vehicle. No one else may ride in it with you. We are not liable for design flaws, predictable failures, and any consequential losses this may cause. If you don't agree with this (and all of the other provisions that I won't bother to make fun of) then, you must destroy the vehicle and all materials that came with it."?
If this is legal (And under UCITA, it might be), what's to stop someone that writes an Application program from including the same type of clause. A Word Processor, a spreadsheet, or even a compiler.
I think this would get overturned, even under UCITA, if it went to court first. But it's much more likely that one of these Games will go to court first, and then there will be a precedent for any program.
Possibly I'm being Paranoid - Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
http://grc.com/optout.htm
The above is a link to a software program that identifies and removes a particular program that loads when Windows starts. The program is made by Aureate/Radiate. It comes piggybacked onto shareware/adware programs downloaded from places like Tucows. It sends your browsing habits and other information back to a central server even when the programs they came with are not active. To make matters worst it is known to increase the frequency of browser crashes and tries to only be active when you are sending/receiving data to disguise itself. They sneak an agreement to allow this into the EULA. All of my machines were "infected" when I checked. Kinda scary.
Warning: By reading this you are entering into a legally binding agreement.
You hereby agree that, beginning at the start of the next hour, no license or contract which you do not sign with your actual written signature, your verbal promise, or your own authorized crytographic electronic signature will be binding on you.
"... 2. Agreements. This Agreement comprises the entire agreement between Multitude and you, and supersedes any prior agreements between you and Multitude with respect to the subject matter hereof or thereof. However, Multitude may revise this Agreement at any time, and such revision shall be effective thirty (30) days after posting of the revised Agreement on the Firetalk/Community website. You agree to review the Agreement periodically to become aware of such revisions. If any such revision is unacceptable to you, you may terminate your use of the service as provided in this Agreement."
In other words, they can modify this agreement at any time without notification to you. Maybe this would be acceptable if it weren't for statements like this a little bit later:
"You hereby consent to the extraction of hardware system profile data through the Service from any computer that logs on to the Service using your Master Account."
What's to stop them from changing their agreement to allow them to extract personal information without notification to me?
"...You may not select as your nickname the name of another person (unless it is also your name), or a name which violates any third party's trademark right, copyright, or other proprietary right, or which Multitude deems in its discretion to be vulgar or otherwise offensive. Multitude reserves the right to delete any vulgar or otherwise offensive nicknames, or to require you to change nickname. You are entirely liable for all activities conducted through your Account and the nickname registered to your Account."
So I can't use the nickname "Cokemaster" because "Coke" is a registered trademark, even if the name refers to my outrageous cocaine habit rather than the cola?
"...You are entirely liable for all activities conducted through your Account and the nickname registered to your Account. ... While Multitude is not charging for the service at this time, Multitude reserves the right to charge in the future, and in this case YOU WILL BE FULLY LIABLE FOR ANY AND ALL CHARGES UNDER YOUR ACCOUNT, INCLUDING ANY UNAUTHORIZED CHARGES. ... Charges for Service. Currently there are no rates or charges for using the Service. Multitude may change its fees and billing methods at any time effective thirty (30) days after notice thereof is posted on the Firetalk/Community website, the terms of which are incorporated herein. All changes will be posted online and you are responsible for reviewing pricing information posted to the Service to obtain timely notice of such changes."
Nice, they can start to bill me without my consent, and they can also bill me for a stolen or cracked account.
"Any content, characters, artwork, text, information, or other intellectual property you add to the Software when and if such activities are enabled will be in the public domain. Neither you nor anyone else may claim to own or have exclusive right, including the copyright or trademark rights to such material, and you agree that Multitude may use such material for any purpose, including republication and creation of derivative rights. You assume all risks regarding the determination of your right to use the materials or whether the materials are in the public domain."
They can make my copyrighted content public domain on my behalf, even if it's related to private comminucation, and then use it themselves?
The rest of the agreement goes on and on, basically stating that your only and ultimate recourse if you object to the terms of this or any modified form of this agremeent is to cancel your account. Furthermore, cancelling your account does not entitle you to a refund of any money you've paid to Multitude, Inc. for service (considering that they indicate that you must pay for service before receiving it, this is pretty heinous).
Its also kind of like the tragedy of the commons in some ways. All the other companies are doing it. Its giving them a competitive edge so it forces other companies to do likewise. And its also turning into an arms race as all these companies add clause after clause into their products to protect themselves and to gain leverage against other companies they compete or do business with. I hate to use a cliche here, but the bottom line is the bottom line. Its business. The only way to stop it, IMO, is to legislate, and by that I mean to undo the damage that is the UCITA and all the other stupid laws and decisions that have made software into this protected class of goods.
The issues at stake here are that none of these clauses are illegal and the whole concept of software as a protected class of goods has somehow been accepted in the vernacular of IP attorneys as "pretty darn good idea!" It goes back my point, all of the EULAs are written by and for other lawyers based on bad laws. What do you expect? The engineers had no say in this law. The consumers had no say in this law. Its all attorneys and REALLY big software companies that drove this, like AOL which happens to be headquartered in the first state to enact the UCITA: Virginia. Its like a nuclear arms race at this point. The new laws make all these clauses binding and legal, and the wacky new EULAs are driving each other to create more and more clauses to protect the interests of the company that produced that piece of software. The UCITA and other laws were not written to put the consumer first but rather to put business first and not to even consider what it might do to the consumers.
The solution is to change the law. Until that happens, you can complain all your want about EULAs, but they're just going to get worse. Maybe if you're lucky you might be able to shame a company into changing their EULA, but don't count on it. Since there is no law against them, they're perfectly legal and perfectly binding. And thats the problem.
--
Python
Python
I'm not sure about the back door on this ;^)
one, but what about the sticker over the power
plug that says breaking this sticker means
accepting the software license? I'm surprised
Microsoft could get away with that. How could
it possibly ever be held valid? I've asked for
but never received an RMA for those power supplies.
Radiate.com has some interesting additions to the standard EULA..."you understand that this software will connect to the Internet UBIQUITOUSLY to download advertisements and/or to provide software updates"... HMMMM nice Trojan potential.
... "NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES...EVEN IF RADIATE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES." Don't even bother telling us - we don't care.
And of course...."you agree not to alter, decompile, disassemble, or reverse engineer the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, in whole or in part, whether for error correction or otherwise" Don't try to fix it.
And finally
All these made me block the UBIQUITOUS connections (via port 1975) to their web site I saw on our network. Nice thing is none of the users has noticed a lack of functionality with the ad sponsored "free" software and no unexpected updates.
NOTE: By reading this post, you have agreed to run around the room which you are currently in, flapping your arms, and sqawking like a chicken.
Of course, since I'm a network admin, and we have to pay for the traffic (and I don't want everyone going to microsoft to get the updates) this is onerous. I should be allowed to download an install the updates on all systems that I own at once. It costs me $.35/meg for traffic.
Jason Pollock"H. Export controls: except for export to canada for use in canada by canadian citizens, the program may not be exported outside of the united states or to any foreign entity or "foreign person" as defined by the u.s. government regulations, including without limitation anyone who is not a citizen, national or lawful permanent resident of the united states. By using the program, you are warranting that you are not a "foreign person" or under the control of a "foreign person""
Well, in all due fairness to Corel, I'm sure they're only including this section because of stupid encryption export laws. It's not Corel's fault that such laws exist.
US Copyright law does not change this in the least. It does not confer ownership of information. It never has, the copyright clause in the Constitution forbids it twice . Where in the constitution is this written ? I wasn't even aware that there was such a clause . Please help , Your squire Squireson squireson@bigfoot.com
So, they could charge you money for using TourBar at any time without notice!
I spoke to a 'Mastersurfer' named Daniel about the license agreement, and he responded "You're actually reading that thing?!!!" I quoted the text to Daniel and he said said he would ensure it was changed. I checked back a month later. Daniel's not working there any longer, but the EULA has indeed been rewritten without that provision.
ATI distributes a paper-envelope packaged CD with all their video cards, sealed with a sticker.
This CD has all the initial drivers for their cards (the ones offered on their site are all upgrade supplemental drivers), and some software (DVD software on the Expert 2000, for example.)
The package also has the EULA (behind the CD, so you have to open the package to read it.)
The sticker reads:
Please note that removal of this label is your acknowledgement that use of the enclosed software is subject to the terms and conditions set out in the enclosed license agreement. If these terms and conditions are not acceptible, please return the entire product to your place of purchasing for a refund.
Now, I ask you, how do I know the terms of the agreement, to be able to disagree with them, until I read the agreement? If the agreement is inside the package, don't I have to open it to read the agreement first?
(Of course, I could always tear the bottom of the envelope open, thereby not removing the sticker at all! Does that mean I am not bound by their EULA?)
Well, in all due fairness to Corel, I'm sure they're only including this section because of stupid encryption export laws. It's not Corel's fault that such laws exist.
If they did, they're misinterpreting those laws.
Remember, people on work visas use lots of other software that can't be exported, such as 128-bit versions of IE and Netscape, and US versions of Lotus Notes.
There are probably tens of thousands of folks working the US who use SecureID tokens, but are not US citizens.
Hell, some of them are *WRITING* the programs in questions. Last I heard, nobody was getting shut down for this.
Corel just effed up.
--