A Model End Vendor License Agreement

Teese writes "Low End Mac is presenting this article as a humor piece, but its vision of an End Vendor License Agreement seems to be pretty well thought out, and one that I wouldn't mind seeing in the real world."

Comments

Yeah...

[TWX]

So, the vendors have to agree to be bound by an agreement?

BUAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!

Pardon me...

Vendor License Agreement to Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

From the Redmond, WA Garbage Dump: You agree that upon receiving my payment of $199.99 for xp, you will give full control over my computer to me. You agree not to force upgrades, backdoors, or internet explorer at me. You also agree that if my privacy or Fair Use Rights are violated in any way, shape, or form, I have the right to repeal my $199.99 and keep the software at no cost. Bill, please sign below: __________________________

#7

[dirvish]

I agree with most of them but this one seems unreasonable:

All ongoing, recurring registration expenses must be clearly explained at purchase, or I will not pay them. This includes fees for services such as .mac and .NET. You must, however, continue to provide the services.

Services change all the time. You can't expect a business to be able to look into the future, their business model may have to change in order to stay successful.

Re:#7

[steveit_is]

I can and do expect that I will not have the terms of service changed on me after they have been agreed to by both myself and the other party.

If one is selling a service for a length of time, then one had better be damn sure that they can provide THAT service for THAT length of time for THAT price.

It is especially wrong when a corporation after having offered certain terms tries to change those terms by changing the EULA one must accept to apply a patch to a 'buggy' system that should never have been unleashed on the consumer in the first place. (winBlows service packs spring to mind )

I guess my point is, screw their business model... I demand that promises(contracts) be kept!

EVLA and EULA

[r0xah]

Not only is this a pretty neat idea that would be great for the consumer, but how nice would it also be to have a EULA that was about the same length? I don't know many people who can actually read an entire Microsoft EULA without going insane. Many good books are shorter than a Mircrosoft EULA.

Re:EVLA and EULA

[s20451]

Remember the Borland EULA? It was about a paragraph long and basically said that you had to use the software "like a book", i.e., you couldn't use it in two places at the same time. That was one of the most friendly corporate EULAs I've ever seen.

stop payment? I have a better idea....

[kaltkalt]

"if you violate any of these terms we will stop payment" ... huh? What if they violate the EVLA 6 months after you buy the software? How can you stop payment then? You can't. You'd have to sue.

I have a better idea. Make them agree that when you pay them, you are only giving them A LICENSE to use your money. You can revoke that license (i.e. get your money back) at any time, and for any reason. Would there be a failure of consideration (thus making the contract void for ya non-legal peeps)? No, due to time value of money. You get the money back, but not with interest. So they did get some consideration - the use of your money until you ask for it back.

Yeah, you'd still probably have to sue them to get them to quit pirating your money (violating the license agreement), but we can start a BSA type group to enforce such horrible, criminal violations on a large scale. I mean, come on.... taking a license to use someone's money and not giving the money back when the license is revoked is .. well it's sorta kinda like breaking into their house and stealing the money from their piggybank. Damn, I am a genius today.

Re:stop payment? I have a better idea....

[kaltkalt]

quit modding it funny... i'm serious. If I buy their software and only get a license to use it, then I'll give them a license to use my money. It's still my money (just like it's still their software). If we all agree that we will not buy any software unless they accept this condition, we'll make the world a better place. Birds will sing all day long. Chipmunks and pitbulls will play together.

End users protection association

[thinkliberty]

We need a Better Business Bureau like association for EULA's. Where software companies can get their software certified and then being able to display a seal of approval on the packaging by having their EULA user friendly. There could be different levels of friendliness and reviews on software that didn't want to apply for certification.

Print it on the back of your check

[namespan]

I've actually heard of people doing something like this by writing on the back of a check something to the effect of "By endorsing or cashing this check, you agree to the following conditions...."

Not all the different from the $2-$5 checks that periodically come in the mail, which by cashing sign you up for some stupid, inanen service that nearly no one actually needs...

Legislation

[mao che minh]

What is really needed is legislation that protects an end user's basic rights before an EULA is even drawn up - a law that states clearly that an EULA cannot revoke the very basic privileges available to all consumers (somehow software seems exempt, as vendors are able to drastically limit rights in coniving ways, such as hiding the EULA within the shrink wrap. Such under-handed techniques are not allowed in the sale of most other products).

This type of thing (what is mentioned in the article) would work, but only if a vast majority of consumers decided to join such a group. I say we find a way to protect the rights of everyone.

Send them the EVLA after purchase

[rollingcalf]

They don't let us see the EULA until after we purchase the product, so we don't have to let them to see the EVLA until after purchase either.

Just write up your own EVLA and mail it to them, remembering to include the following:

If you do not accept the terms of this agreement, you have 14 days to reimburse the purchase price plus sales taxes and the software product will be returned to you. Failure to return the money within 14 days indicates acceptance of the agreement, which supercedes all End User Licensing Agreements past, present or future.

Then if the manufacturer ever gets around to replying to you, tell them you are not responsible for returning the product; the store where you bought it will send them one. Or if the store contacts you, direct them to the manufacturer.

Re:Text mirror

[gfody]

11. If I uninstall a piece of software, the uninstall program must NOT require the original install disk.
12. When installing your software you MUST NOT put shortcuts for AOL, Real Player, or Gator on my task tray, quick launch toolbar, start menu, desktop or startup folder.

Actually..

[Squidgee]

What if a "union" of sorts was created, and got companies to agree to one of these sort of things, and then to enforce it when the users' liscense is violated..?

Would this be possible? Feasible? Ok prolly not but still, it'd be cool.

Re:Actually..

[HBI]

Labor unions rely on compulsion in most cases - if you work here, you must belong to the union. This works - no one can circumvent it. Who is going to force geeks to join this union though? So, it's a given it's all-volunteer as you have framed it.

Any volunteer action is by its nature flaky and prone to miscarry. All you have to do is join a fraternal organization (Elks, Moose, one of the veterans groups, etc) to see this. We're talking about disciplined, together people who hold down jobs and run businesses, and getting a Friday night dinner together is a fiasco. People don't show, people don't want to wash dishes, we ran out of ketchup, etc.

Look at all the abandoned Sourceforge projects for an illustration of how ineffective volunteer projects can be. Collective volunteer action is very inefficient and downright maddening in many cases. It is a given then that this has a be a real organization with expenses and a revenue stream, otherwise it just isn't going to happen.

In the abstract, your idea is great. Get every geek to join a group to enforce license restrictions to benefit the consumer. But what happens when the person(s) running the group becomes suspect to some of the group? (think ICANN here) Does the group fork? Probably some people drop out or no longer participate.

How effective is a pressure group without numbers behind it? The NRA wields power because they have the signatures of X million people behind them. (I forget how many...3 million?). We're talking membership dues here just to keep track of all the people to demonstrate your size and power. (they charge $25 a year for a basic membership I think)

How many people really care about this kind of stuff, enough to fork over $20 or whatever a year? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand? Is that enough to change Microsoft's mind? How about Pkware? How about Intuit?

I don't know the answers to many of these questions, but I have a feeling the answers to some of them are 'no' or 'not', as appropriate.

They missed a couple

[kimbly]

11. You must never install software on my computer that hijacks other software, causing it to display popups or to add affiliate ids to purchases I make.

12. You must never install software on my computer that connects to a remote server, unless the software first obtains my permission to do so, and explains what information will be sent to the remote server.

Legislation... is unnecessary

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What is really needed is legislation that protects an end user's basic rights before an EULA is even drawn up - a law that states clearly that an EULA cannot revoke the very basic privileges available to all consumers (somehow software seems exempt, as vendors are able to drastically limit rights in coniving ways, such as hiding the EULA within the shrink wrap. Such under-handed techniques are not allowed in the sale of most other products).

In several Western countries, you cannot legally sign away your basic rights. It doesn't matter what the vendors put in a contract, EULA or any other document, how much you pay for it or what you have to sign. Those rights are yours, and a court will ignore any documentation that doesn't respect that.

This is why you find disclaimers in things like EULAs that if one part is found not to hold, the rest still does, etc. It's also why big businesses like Microsoft are terrified of a serious test case that might establish a precedent that EULAs have no legal weight because of the way they are set up. The net effect is that they rely on threats of legal action to get what the EULA would seek to secure for them, because it's the best chance they've got in most places and they know it.

This is not to say that you should flagrantly ignore things you know to be in an EULA unless you want to play dice with the courts. But you're pretty safe in ignoring any unreasonable conditions, because it's about a 110% certainty that they won't be legally enforceable anyway.

No, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, and Slashdot is not the place for serious legal discussion. But use your common sense: no court is going to uphold something as manifestly unreasonable as a contract you supposedly agree to before you even have chance to read it. In fact, some places even have laws to the effect that if you can't reasonably be expected to understand a contract, you can't legally have entered into it. Not sure EULAs would fall within that, but it would be an interesting case...