Slashdot Mirror
May I Have Your EULA Please?
LionsFate asks: "Just like the subject says. I want End User Licence Agreements (EULAs). I'm starting a database of as many EULAs as I can get. I want to know the first EULA that said we can't reverse engineer their software. I want to know the first that said they can watch our activities. I want to know how the NES agreement differs from the GameCube. Did Nintendo lighten, or tighten restrictions? I'm looking to generate a time-line of EULAs and how they have changed. What permissions we have been given, and taken away over that period. What rights did we have in Windows 3.1, compared to Windows XP? How has the MPAA and RIAA changed our 'legal rights' on software as a result of their effort? Watched Napster or other P2P software and seen the changes in their EULAs? I'm starting my EULA database at here and I need as many EULAs as I can get to populate the database. If you can, please email me any/all that you can. I'm hoping within a few weeks to have the site online." Ask Slashdot last tackled the topic of EULAs in this piece. It would be interesting to grab a nice sample of EULAs across the last 2 decades to see what has changed, if anything.
Don't a lot of EULA's have prohibitions against reprinting them in full in settings other than their original form?
Are you a bit worried about the legal ramifications of such a database?
I wish I had a kryptonite cross, because then you could keep Dracula and Superman away.
One point to watch for would be the first EULA that prohibits publishing performance benchmarks. This is now fairly common for high-end software, and is one of the more evil provisions out there.
$ cd eulas/ . ../
$ ls -1 | wc -l
412
$ du -h
513M
$ cd
$ tar -czf eulas.tar.gz eulas/
$ ls -lh eulas.tar.gz
2MB eulas.tar.gz
Essentially, Texas (and many other states) passed a building code "by reference." What this means is that they wrote a law saying, "Construction Company Consortium Foo has published a building code called Bar. It is now the law. Ask them for a copy." Builders are now requiored to follow a law they are not legally allowed to view, except by buying it from the industry association that wrote it.
Nope, no sig
http://www.osdn.com/terms.shtml
Of course, like all legal matters, Slashdot readers have the authoritative opinion. NOT. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. Usually.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Someone out there wants to market a random EULA generator and they're using /. to make up the data!
Seriously, an EULA DB sounds like an excellent idea, but I have an implementation question. Have you considered marking them up in XML (a huge task, I'm sure) so that they can be searched for certain provisions? Reasoning here being that without good internal markup, you pretty much need to read through the whole EULA to compare it to another. Being able to search through the archive for different examples of specific clauses, specific allowances or provisions would be much more useful than simple searches for IE v.4 vs v.5
Good luck though, this is an excellent idea, and I like the idea of seeing included in a software reviews lines like: "...and the EULA scores a 3.4 of 5 on the standardized EULA Draconian scale..."
He is not stealing. Copyrighted materials are allowed to be reproduced as part of a critique of the material. He is obviously not trying to gain from the endeavor, but to critique the copyrighted works.
You'll get tons of them from people sharing their C: drives to the while world from Windows boxes.
Using the "Find" utility on this NT box yields EULA's for Acrobat, MS Messenger, MS Chat, NetMeeting NT, Microsoft Internet, Winzip, MS Office, and Internet Explorer.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
I've thought about this myself. What I wanted to do was "color code" each phrase/sentence in the EULA, and come up with some "EULA-description markup language" for it. There would be a different color for each of these categories:
Redundant text (pink or gray maybe) - anything that repeats copyright law, i.e., "you may not distribute copies"
Dubious text (red) - anything that attempts to limit your rights further than copyright law, i.e., "you may not use this product to disparage microsoft" .. I call it dubious because this is the stuff that shouldn't be binding unless you've signed a contract.
Descriptive text (blue) - anything that describes the behavior of the product or the company, i.e., "if multiple versions of this product are detected, we will drop a bomb on your grandmother's house", or "this product will delete the competitor's product upon installation". This isn't really "license"-related, but describes the product.
Rights-granting text (green) - anything that says you have permission from the copyright holder to do things you're not otherwise allowed to do, i.e., "you may distribute copies verbatim if you include this copyright notice"
Filler text (light green) - this is junk that you should ignore completely, such as any "summaries" (if the license is binding, it's the LICENSE that's binding, not any summary they may have written for your benefit). This also includes the stuff in the GPL about "freedom", which is nice to know, but not necessary.
Imagine having each license color-coded like this, you could even view thumbnails of the licenses to see which one was best, showing the different blocks of color at a glance. For instance, the GPL would probably be all "Filler" and "Rights-granting" and you could visually see that it indeed is more "consumer-friendly" (lots of green) than the average microsoft license (lots of red).
Also note, any license that says "the terms of this license are subject to change" should be treated specially (for instance, all BRIGHT RED), since, for all intents and purposes, it may change *completely* at any time, and could conceivably be 100% Dubious and should be treated as such.
I'd love to see something like this combined with a database of licenses.
According to folklore in the database world,
Oracle was the first to have the restriction
for publishing performance data.
This is documented in here
I don't have the actual licenses, but I remember a serious controversy when Borland came out with several restrictions for their C++ compilers. You could not compile and distribute any programs that would compete with any Borland product. Precious.
3 c/9453c .htm
See this DDJ article about this:
http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=1006/ddj945