Slashdot Mirror
EULAs Don't Have To Suck
jfruhlinger writes "The ubiquitous EULA — reams of baffling text imposing draconian terms on software users — infuriate most Slashdot users and are routinely ignored by everyone else (until they suddenly cause trouble, of course). But it doesn't have to be that way. Several European countries are considering laws mandating user-friendly EULAs, and some companies provide them voluntarily."
Routinely ignored.
Draconian, unethical, and immoral EULAs are just the natural extension of a political system that has long since been sold to the highest bidder.
I had to sign a contract for employment that claimed company ownership of projects completed on my own time. I had already turned down all the other jobs and needed my income, so I had to sign it.
It should be illegal to even write these types of contracts or EULAs, and it would be if not for our blindingly corrupt government.
They are an attempt to form a unconscionable (in the legal sense) contract with thousands of people. And almost invariably they try to convince you that you have less rights than you do under the law. They are basically about eliminating fair use, because every one I've seen uses the leverage of copyright law.
Now, if this were about terms of service, that would be something. I'm all for terms of service that are legible by ordinary human beings.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Several European countries are considering laws mandating user-friendly EULAs
While I think this is a great start, I think a better idea would be to take the common subset of clauses that both consumers and vendors can agree upon, and make them implied by law.
EULAs shouldn’t be an automatic, they should be an exception, for cases where something is radically different.
To an extreme, I don’t think that clicking “I agree” should even be legally binding. If you have some kind of special case, lawyers or at least something more substantial than clicking a button should be required. If your customers can’t be bothered, either learn to operate within the common set of agreed rules, or go into a different business.
I can't use Virtual Clone Drive since the website says it's free, the developer says it's free, everyone says it's free but the EULA doesn't specifically say that.
I hate EULAs. (Plus an interesting note, RealPlayer apparently cannot be used in a commercial environment at all, or so says the EULA.)
Then don't sign contracts that have terms you disagree with.
So what should one do when all providers of an essential service have disagreeable terms? Join the Amish?
When I bought IDA Professional, in the EULA it explicitly spelled out several things:
1.) I an install it on any machine I own
2.) I can make backups
3.) I can reverse engineer the software
If only the rest of the world worked that way. They trust their users - and it inpires a level of respect, at least with me, where there is absolutely no chance I would share a copy.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
How about a law that requires a company changing its terms of service to tell you exactly what the changes are and how they affect you, rather than simply saying that they've changed them, with a link to the new version (and a fat lot of good it'll do you, too)? Back when I had a PayPal account, that was one of the most annoying things about them.
A EULA is a form of 'contract' but, I always though contracts implied some form of negotiation, not just blind (enforced, un-yielding, etc. etc.etc.) acceptance. Who's negotiating for us? At work, our Contracts Department can ask a vendor to change a EULA and there's a chance it will happen but, good luck calling up XYZ Corp and saying, I'd feel better if Clause 4.3.1.2 said foo instead of bar...
I returned a Sony TV partly because the EULA said I had to indemnify Sony if I violated the EULA or was even alleged to have violated the EULA. I didn't want to deal with possibly being on the hook for million dollar lawyer fees. I know that the chances of Sony getting sued because of my actions would probably be nil, and two it would be thrown out of court as unconscionable, but still, I thought the indemnify clause was crazy. This indemnify clause also said Sony would have to approve of any lawyers involved. Additionally the TV came with Yahoo widgets, and the EULA for Yahoo widgets said the license was non-transferable. I assumed this to mean that selling the TV would violate the EULA. The EULA required arbitration for any disputes. The entirety of the EULA gave Sony all the rights and the user none. Well, the TV that I exchanged it for looked better anyway, so it was a win win for me.
Oswald's rule of EULA:
If you have to scroll the EULA is no good and few people will read it.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
I don't know why no one includes summary's at the top of EULAs. It's not like it's that hard of an idea to think of and I've yet to hear a single objection (though I'm sure /. can help with this). No one is actually saying you can't have pages and pages of precise details spelled out in pages and pages for the lawyers.
By the way, this is suggested on page 2 of the article for all of you who either didn't read the article, or refuse to bother going to page 2 of an article that has no reason not to be on a single page.
As the article says something about European countries I'll limit myself to that subset of humanity.
Most European countries should explicitly invalidate Eula's as a legal and binding contract, as a matter of fact I don't think many countries or courts in Europe would even consider them as such right now.
There are some countries that already have stipulations about the readability of consumer contracts and according to the issuers the Eula is such.
Plus the EU law gives you the explicit right to return any product bought over the Internet within a 7 day grace period.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Not saying slimy lobbyists and politicians (or their staffers) don't intentionally obsfucate bills for their own gain, but there is a reason for the dense & hard to decipher language (namely, you're not trained to be able to read it). From TFA, I rather like the "Human Friendly Summary" sitting next to the legalese.
This right here. I'm surprise at how many computer geeks think that making laws into plain English will accomplish anything. It's like, hey, fine, let's require you to do all of your programming in simple and plain English, rather than these arcane scribbles and symbols and grammars!
Legal documents are dense legalese for a reason: a bug in a computer program means a computer crash, but a bug in a legal document means a loophole. Everyone wants to close loopholes, but no one thinks about how that causes the dense legalese that we need trained professionals to interpret.
WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Not all of them are bad. HavenTree did a humorous one some time back:
Text of software license
This is where the bloodthirsty licensing agreement is supposed to go, explaining that Interactive Easyflow is a copyrighted package licensed for use by a single person, and sternly warning you not to pirate copies of it and explaining, in detail, the gory consequences if you do. We know that you are an honest person, and are not going to go around pirating copies of Interactive Easyflow; this is just as well with us since we worked hard to perfect it and selling copies of it is our only method of making anything out of all the hard work. If, on the other hand, you are one of those few people who do go around pirating copies of software you probably aren't going to pay much attention to a license agreement, bloodthirsty or not. Just keep your doors locked and look out for the HavenTree attack shark.
Text of disclaimer
We don't claim Interactive EasyFlow is good for anything -- if you think it is, great, but it's up to you to decide. If Interactive EasyFlow doesn't work: tough. If you lose a million because Interactive EasyFlow messes up, it's you that's out the million, not us. If you don't like this disclaimer: tough. We reserve the right to do the absolute minimum provided by law, up to and including nothing. This is basically the same disclaimer that comes with all software packages, but ours is in plain English and theirs is in legalese. We didn't really want to include any disclaimer at all, but our lawyers insisted. We tried to ignore them but they threatened us with the attack shark at which point we relented.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are fairly short considering the extent of ground they cover. Turns out that some previous US Politicians felt that laws should be understandable to the general populace.