Slashdot Mirror
Software Customer Bill of Rights
Cem Kaner of Badsoftware.com has written up a Software Customer Bill of Rights. Very appropriate considering our recent stories about Microsoft viruses, Dell's BIOS-clickwrap licensing agreement, etc.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
But this is America. Consumer rights are secondary to business rights...
"1. Let the customer see the contract before the sale. It should be easy for customers of mass-market software products and computer information contracts to compare the contract terms for a product..." It would be interesting to see how the court opinions which make this right one of the few listed which are already enforcable would serve as precident in relation to the new agreements imposed by microsoft as one installs mission-critical updates. Would drastic changes to EULA's made by Microsoft in software updates which are all but absolutly essential for the wellbeing of your data, etc, be court enforcable? Probably not...
Nice piece. Very nice, and very never going to happen. At least as long as opponents are large corps with armies of slick lawyers and proponents the EFF, RMS and a few computer-educated consumers.
...
...
Remember, most computer users still think software crashes and glitches are part of life with a computer, that viruses and worms are the work of evil pirates and that Microsoft is the victim, not the cause, etc
In short: it'll never happen. Move along
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Oh, you mean that one that was patched a whole month before? Or are you talking about that e-mail attachment virus, the one for which you apparently expect Bill Gates to show up at people's houses telling them not to run the attachment?
How is it Microsoft's fault if users run the attachment? Is it Linus Torvalds' fault when there's a sendmail hole? Is that suddenly a "Linux hole?"
Just curious.
"Sufferin' succotash."
As long as software publishers can get an ear from congressmen and senators that I can't get... and can deliver cash for elections that I can't... they'll get benefits that I can't.
The software and service licensing has become ridiculous over the last few years. They create these huge legalese documents, and imply agreement to them by opening a package or using a service. And, try returning a piece of software if you don't agree to the license, good luck.
While these agreements become more complex and onerous, the people creating them have taken on no responsibilities to clarify the licenses, explain the reqstrictions, etc.
If the companies are allowed to use these licenses, they should be required to have an independent citizens rights group translate/rate the license to compare it to accepted norms of how restrictive the licenses are. Rather than expecting each person to read the complete license, or have their lawyer interpret it for them; it should be analyzed by a professional and summarized in simple language. It should also carry ratings on a few key points, like how much it tries to limit product usage, resale, reverse engineering.. and, related areas like privacy protection by the company.
When has any product ever "lived" up to the marketing claims? If I expected everything I bought to live up to their claims, I'd be dissapointed with every bar of soap, every beer, and every Big Mac.
And that's not the way it should be. An ad shouldn't be able to tell me that a product is something when it's not. It is not my job to guess about what parts are lies.
Well, a bar of soap leaving you "clean and fresh" is something of an opinion. A piece of software that claims to work on Windows XP, but does not is a different story.
I've seen several boxed applications that have claims on the box that are simply not true... And I'm not talking about a game claiming to be able run on a 500MHz system.
I can name a number of MMORPGs that had big fat claims on their boxes/websites for features that were not (yet) in the games at launch. Hell, some of these games didn't even RUN after launch... With no refunds.
The section that you refer to is probably directed at things like that.
-Riskable
"Those who choose proprietary software will pay for their decision!"
I went to read this article thinking I would probably end up posting and saying that the US is too litigous, that it's dumb to have agreement upon agreement, even on the side of good, and that it was probably just a bunch of whiny rights.
What I found, though, was a simple, precise set of terms that are wholly agreeable. Nothing in that document is the least bit complicated or overbroad.
Let us see the contracts before we have to agree to them. Don't take away rights we already have, like criticism and reverse engineering, and first sale. If you know about serious bugs, tell us. Don't lie about what the product does.
That's pretty straightforward, and should not be the least bit damaging to anyone selling decent software.
Companies have a right to sell software and to ban people from reverse engineering it.
Why? If I buy a car, I can dig around under the hood to my heart's content. If I buy a book, I can study the writing style. Why should software be any different, especially given that software interacts with other programs on my computer, and other systems on the net, in ways that can be important to know but are easily hidden from the use.
Marketing is not what we are talking about.
Living up to the claims means that when we go in the store, and the package actually says "Imports all microsoft office formats", and it turns out that is false... that they have to take it back, no questions asked. It's a false sale.
The reason this needs to be stated is that, although you have this protection with physical products, the license-ish nature of software has allowed some vendors to claim that you have no recourse, even though they lied.
It's not the same thing as false advertising... more like sale under false pretenses.
I think that if anyone could take apart a car that a company spends 1000's of hours designing, then what would stop people from making a similar car? It would be too easy to steal designs/ideas from companies which spend millions of dollars coming up with them.
How do you think Ford ever got competition from the likes of GM, VW, Kia, etc.? How do you think Ford started making cars?
I think they can patent some ideas, based on non-obviousness and the rest of patent law, but when it comes down to it, Ford still buys all the newest GM models and takes them apart, just like everyone else.
US patent and copyright law was created to expand the public domain. To do this, it gives an incentive to people for inventing (patents) or creating (copyrights). If you ever stop people from learning how to invent or create, by stopping them from taking apart and investigating the products of others, then you are acting against the intent of the constitution.
I think what you really have in mind is Let software be installed on multiple machines by the same person. Let ownership be tied to the human being and not the computer. It actually makes a lot of sense, if you think about it.
I suggest that he add:
Source code and documentation will be placed and maintained [updated] in bonded escrow.
If the software product or hardware product reaches end of life and the current company does not develop a follow-on product with corresponding upgrade offer to registered customers, then the source code [software and firmware and documentation in digital format] will be sent to registered software and hardware customers, and, the source code will declared open source and offered to all via internet. If the initial development company is sold, source code will be offered and sent, if requested, to registered software and hardware owners. If the initial development company ceases to exist, source code will be sent to registered software and hardware owners, and, the source code will be declared open source and offered to all via internet. If an operating system integer upgrade [v1.X -> v2.X] requires the user to purchase new operating system software or hardware, then the source code will be offered to registered customers.
Failure to make source code available when a product reaches end of life or other conditions listed above will result in the top five officers of the initial development company (and the top five of the purchasing company, if a company purchase is involved) [CEO, COO, CIO, CFO, etc] being fined no less than $1,000,000 each, not payable by insurance company or current company; and will result in their forfeiture of all of the monies the executives received from their respective companies; and, will result in their receiving three years in prison without possibility of parole.
There is a difference in a statement of fact and an expression of opinion. If Acme Autos advertises that it's Super Spiffy model will do 0 to 60 in under 5 seconds, it had better do it. However, if they claim that the Super Spiffy model will make you super cool, that isn't an objective statement of fact. Ad companies are extremely careful to ensure that all statements of fact are accurate. They'll imply and insinuate all sorts of things, many of which are of dubious truth value. But statements of fact must be true or the manufacturer is liable.
The same should be true of software. AOL can say that their software helps protect your children from inappropriate content, but they should not be able to say that it prevents your children form viewing inappropriate content. Such subtleties are everything in a court of law.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.