Software End User License Agreement Upheld In Court (UnknownPlayer) [LWN.net]

UnknownPlayer.com is running an editorial by Ramin Sarcerok Shokrizade that examines a number of interesting "gotchas" buried deep inside the legalese of many software End User License Agreements (EULAs). By clicking the "accept" button, users are inadvertantly giving away private information, access to their computer CPU cycles, and more. Thanks to Barry Gould.

(Log in to post comments)

EULAs

Posted Jun 13, 2002 21:09 UTC (Thu) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

If we are lucky, pretty soon people are going to realize what they're getting themselves into. Lawyers who are competent will start advising clients that they are taking a big risk unless they refuse to use anything but Free Software.... Onerous EULAs could be the biggest boon Free Software has ever seen, as is already the case with Microsoft tightening the screws. Why attach all those strings if you don't have to?

Microsoft and other proprietary software vendors want us to be scared about all the uncertainties that come with using software written by "the masses". In reality, we need to be scared of the risks and uncertainties of using anything but free software.

-Rob

Free Software is about freedom

Posted Jun 14, 2002 21:53 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

I disagree that enforceable EULAs are boon for Free Software. Free Software is not a goal, it's a tool. The goal is more freedom. EULAs restrict freedom of users by imposing conditions on the customers beyond those covered by copyright law. Hence it takes freedom from users. It's morally wrong to support this limitation, while advocating freedom.

In practical terms, a EULA can be used to prohibit use of the "covered" software with free software. Microsoft could enjoin you from connecting to Samba or from running Office on Wine. UNIX vendors could prohibit you from replacing OS components with free software equivalents. Software players could restrict your right to listen to music from other countries.

I see enough clueless messages in mailing lists from people who expect that everybody will consult them. They don't even bother to tell the version of the software that doesn't work for them! Forcing people to use free software by law will make this situation even worse. Switching to free software requires changing users' minds. It cannot be done effectively by restricting their choice between free and non-free software.

Fortunately, it seems from the judgement that the EULA was not interpreted by the court as a binding agreement. The court merely decided that every user was given a fair chance to read the EULA, which has some bearing on the case. I'm not a lawyer though.