Slashdot Mirror
Bioware Revises NWN EULA
malaire writes "Assistant Producer Derek French of Neverwinter Nights has posted the new EULA for all to see. This addresses most concerns raised by the community about user-created content for the game." Our story noting the EULA concerns makes interesting, if somewhat confusing, reading.
Okay, if anyone actually bothered to READ the EULA, they will see that Bioware has actually done a Good Thing (tm). Now you actually have to distribute your module, as opposed to simply "serving" it. Which I suppose means that if 5,000 people play under me as a DM, they cant touch it, but if I send it to Billy Bob jr to play on his Lindows machine, its fair game. :)
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
This is nothing new. Ever read the FBI WARNING that comes on before movies on VHS/DVD/etc? Unauthorizedending isn't allowed. Most CD audio, especially from the big labels, has a prohibition against unauthorized lending of the CD to anyone if you look hard enough.
While making me technically a criminal because I lent my copy of Alpha Centauri or the latest Britney Spears album to a friend, they really don't want to go after me. This basically allows them to come down on anyone who rents movies, video games, CDs, etc, without paying them a juicy licensing fee for the priviledge. Of course, regular public libraries get around this somehow, either by statute or custom, or both, not sure.
in legal jargon, they cant say that the WILL give credit, if they miss placeing your name somewhere, you could sue the shit out of them, instead, they say use the phrase "make the best effort to" to imply that they will do their best.
to put that in context... its the same as me, a freelance software developer, saying in a contract:
"my company will make the program so that it cant be hacked"
or
"my company will make the best effort to construct the application in such a way to avoid user hacks"
The Code Ninja is swift with his tool, precise in his delivery, and deadly accurate in his execution.
When you buy a book, you're not necessarily spending your hard earned dollars on the physical representation of what you buy. It doesn't cost $8 to produce a paperback. You own the cover, the spine, the pages but you do not own the story contained there within.
No, you are buying exactly one copy of not just the physical book, but the story contained within. The only thing that copyright gives anyone is the exclusive right to distribute copies of that work. That's it! It does not magically confer ownership of ideas to anyone.
You may sell your book under the doctrine of First Sale without having to pay royalties (or 'liscense fees' if you will) to the content owners, for that has already been paid once.
As can I sell or give away a copy of any piece of software I have legally purchased.
EULA's by themselves have been found legal, its parts in the EULA's that have not been legally tested.
Really?
"The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers. However, this preference does not alter the Court's analysis that the substance of the transaction at issue here is a sale and not a license," Judge Pregerson writes. If you put your money down and walked away with a CD, you bought that copy, EULA or no EULA."
You do not purchase something, you liscense the use of it.
The above court decision would clearly disagree.
Don'y buy the propaganda. It doesn't matter how many 'education' campaigns are waged by software publishers, it doesn't change the fact that you are, in fact, purchasing an item and not a license.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
You should know, in the early 20th century book publishers included ex post facto contracts, very similar to the EULA, restricting your right to resell your book among other things. Congress declared that no such contracts will be enforced.
What if they included in the EULA that by using the software you give up the right to your first born. Now, clearly, even if you signed that before you got the product, such a contract could not be enforced. There are certain rights that can not be signed away by anyone at all. I'm not saying the rights which the EULA restricts can not be signed away, but stop making these blanket statements and pretending everything is black and white.
It's kind of like people's reaction to a monopoly of a non-essential good. "Well if you don't like their prices, don't buy it!" In an efficient market there are other factors besides what you're willing to pay that will decide the price.