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."
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$'s lawyer bills.'
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
By using our Web site, you consent to the collection and use of your personal information by MP3.com as outlined in this Privacy Policy.
But I never read the agreement!
I also don't have a copy with me, but on the Microsoft Y2K update cdrom's that they mailed out (I don't know what you have to do to get on that list) the wrapper of the cdrom said that by using the cdrom, I agreed to the terms and conditions of the license agreement, stored on the cdrom! These are clearly catch-22 situations, and oughta be illegal - except for UCITA, which makes them binding.
Visit
License agreements (and all legal documents) are supposed to be understood by the parties entering into the agreement. As it stands, most EULAs are full of legal mumbo-jumbo.
If I'm installing a piece of software at 2am, am I really expected to read through a lengthy document and consult a lawyer when I don't understand a particular clause? If you ask the company whose product I've just bought, yes.
If you ask me, that is an unreasonable expectation. Do you know what lawyers cost? Do you think I should have to keep one on retainer just for the cases where I install commercial software? Hell, that would cost as much or more as buying the software in the first place!
Additionally, these companies try to avoid any liability issues. Suppose I buy a defective dishwasher that sparks and catches my house on fire... who is responsible for that? Maytag (or whoever, no offense to Maytag intended or implied).
If a memory leak in someone's latest, greatest software package corrupts vital data (say in the kernel of my new media-less Windows 2000 system), who's to blame? No one. (Well, I'd be the one to blame if I was stupid enough to rely on M$ 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
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.
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.
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.