Slashdot Mirror
New Dell Clickthrough Software License
Petrol writes "I just read that Dell is installing a new mandatory click-through software license at first boot. From the article, Dude, you're getting screwed:
'Kat and I just received the Dell Inspiron 5100 notebook we ordered from Dell Canada. We quickly ran across problems.'"
Dell's Software License Policy
Dude, you're getting screwed
28 Aug 2003
Kat and I just received the Dell Inspiron 5100 notebook we ordered from Dell Canada. We quickly ran across problems.
I pushed the power button to turn on computer. I got the Dell POST screen, then a screen from Dell (Photo):
But there are no license agreements in the box that the computer came in. [There are some shrinkwrapped CD containers, but the "Terms and Conditions of Sale (CANADA)" that came with the invoice says:
I've never agreed to those Terms and Conditions, to my knowledge, but I assume they think they're enforceable, so I can't open up the shrinkwrap to see if the license agreements are in there, without automatically agreeing to them.]
So I called the only Dell number I could find on my documentation (1-800-847-4096) and spoke to a customer support representative. I told her what was on the screen, and told her I couldn't find the license agreements I'm required to read and agree to before pressing any key.
She put me on hold while she looked into where the license agreements might be, and eventually transferred me to technical support. The tech support agent told me her database was down, so she couldn't look up anything at all (I hadn't even told her what the problem was yet), and I'd have to call back in an hour.
I call back, and speak to a tech support woman. She says: "press Tab." I explain that I can't without saying I've read and agreed to documents I don't have. She says "press page down". Same problem. She says "scroll down". I explain it's not a Windows screen. She says "insert any Dell-shipped CD". I exlpain the problem of opening the CD packaging.
She insists I have to press a key. I ask her if she really means that I have to agree to the licenses before it's at all possible that i've read them. She says "yes". I explain that that's not acceptable, and ask for her supervisor.
Her supervisor insists it's a Customer Care issue, and not tech support, and that there's nothing he can do. He can't explain why they sent me to him. He enters my info into the call log databse, and I go to call back Customer Care.
So back into the hold queue I go.
I'm finally connected to a Customer Care representative. [Pretty much each sentence in the following was interspersed with long, long times on hold.]
She looked up the call log to get the background info. She insists she doesn't have copies of the agreements, and that I'm supposed to go online and look them up myself. (?!) She says to use a
Uhm, licenses you are forced to agree to before reading them are null and void! Under contract laws, these arrangements are illegal. A contract entered into under misleading or coerced circumstances is broken. Even severability clauses may not apply ( IE, if some part of this contract is found to break a law, then only that part of the contract is broken, and the rest of the terms are still binding ). Since you can't even read that clause if it existed, it doesn't exist.
Essentially, the defaults of copyright, customer service, and warranty laws would then apply.
Bad move for Dell, as whatever rights they want you to throw away, you can't! Since the 'License' is non-binding, well. MUHAHAHA!
My inspiron 2650 came with this feature almost a year ago. I called Dell and asked them "What if I don't agree with the license?" He said, "Boot off of your new OS CD and format the hard drive."
I was like OK. That was what I did. If you do format the hard drive, then you're not bound to the terms. If you never use that OS, then you are fine.
Okay maybe it wasn't a click-through process. But it said "Press the space bar to agree to the terms of the license agreement."
So, I don't see what the big deal is. You're not forced to agree. You're not agreeing by using the laptop, so what?
BUT bad people are trying to change all that. They've come up with a proposed law, called the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act, or UCITA. UCITA would, among other things, explicitly make shrinkwrap licenses fully enforceable. This would be a very bad thing.
UCITA is already the law in Maryland and Virginia. If you live in those states, move!
For more information on why UCITA is bad, click here. Find your state representatives here. Tell them what you think.
This one is the closest to what I remember agreeing to. It's actually the license to use ODBC, which was a virtual requirement for accessing databases from Visual Basic in our environment at the time (apparently '96-'97).
Here's the salient paragraph (emphasis and examples mine):I found a number of references to the
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
IANAL, but i am a law student. if you purchase something, and clauses are presented to you after the purchase then they are unenforceable, full stop.
a) There's no opportunity for argeement with an EULA, which is a commonly accepted characteristic of a contract
b) There is no consideration involved in an EULA, and consideration is a defining attribute of a contract.
c) Software purchases are presented as sales and have all the characteristics of a sale, thus they cannot be contractual obligations.
I've setup numerous inspirons with ghost. If this is the screen i'm thinking of, then it's on its own partition (about 30 megs or so) right before the boot partition. I don't believe this is stored in the bios. However, hypothetically, if it was, then yes short of a bios flash there would be no way around it.
Actually it's not a grey area at all. Any contract signed by an unemancipated youth is null and void if the youth decides that they don't want to be bound by it. In the case of child actors and such it is the primary caregiver or some other responsible agent that signs the contract and pledges that the child will work, not the youth.
Each state in the United States has their own versions of contract law, here's an example from California:
So yes, this would most likely get around any user agreement or contract that you have to "click-through". Just have your 5 year old kid press the key and click on the buttons and then you are home free to do whatever you want with the software. Of course if it came down to a court case you would have to convince a court that you truly never saw or agreed to the clauses.
Sapere aude!
SlashChick,
. html#TOCGP LAndPlugins
I think your frustration with mysql and the GPL is based on common misconceptions about free software and teh GPL. First off, "free software" is more like "Freedom" than "zero cost". Look in google for the old discussions about free software vs. free beer. They're not the same thing. Also read Stallman's musings about "software libre" and "software gratis".
Secondly, the GPL's requirements for redistribution are not as all-encompasing as you might think. A program that uses another program that is GPL does not need to be GPL. Consider that many vendors (i.e. Checkpoint, Tivo, Google, VMWare) use linux as a core part of a commercial software product. Some elements of those products, generally modifications to GPL source code, are required to be GPL. However the majority of the product is not at all GPL.
Because MySQL release the client software as a library, you may choose to structure your application so that those portions that directly access the GPL client software are distributed separately, and are released under GPL. The rest of the program would go through your client app to access the mysql cliet library to query the database.
Note that the FSF advises that passing data to & from a GPL program does not normally constitute a derivative work. You would be passing data in a way that is consistent with simply using the program.
see:http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq
Consider these examples,
1. I write a shell script that uses bash, I release that script as a commercial, non-free software product. This is an acceptable distributon of GPL software in conjunction with non-GPL software.
2. I write an extension to bash, that via changes to the bash source code, adds a new capability to bash. Distribution of this extension must be under the terms of the GPL.
Remember that by design, the GPL tries to protect the original rights of the developer, not to attempt to extend those rights onto to new programs not authored by the developer. Don't believ the MS hype about viral software, it's misinformation, and it harms both sides of the free software debate.