EULA Idiocy?

Mod

1,082

Jun 16, 2002 at 5:52 PM

Out of curiosity and boredom, I began skating through the EULAs for some common apps...

quote:
Windows Update EULA * You may only install and use one copy of the OS Components. If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable OS Product, you need to reconnect to this site and download an additional copy of the OS Components from each computer on which you are running the applicable OS Product.

I sure as hell don''t download the same thing 4 times. Do you keep downloading it over and over again?

quote:
MSVC 6 Standard Edition EULA 1.1 General License Grant. Microsoft grants to you as an individual, a personal, nonexclusive license to make and use copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT for the sole purposes of designing, developing, and testing your software product(s) that are designed to operate in conjunction with any Microsoft operating system product. You may install copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on an unlimited number of computers provided that you are the only individual using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. If you are an entity, Microsoft grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the sole right to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the manner provided above.

Well, first off I''m not the only person who uses my MSVC. Second, it says that a company has to buy a new copy of MSVC for each employee(the last bit about the "entity". Yeah right, who does that?

quote:
DirectX 8 SDK EULA SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may install and use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on up to ten (10) computers, including workstations, terminals or other digital electronic devices ("COMPUTERS"), provided that you are the only individual using the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on each COMPUTER, to design, develop, and test software application products for use with Microsoft operating system products including Microsoft Windows 98, Millennium Edition or Windows 2000 operating system products and/or any version or edition of any Microsoft operating system product that is a successor to the foregoing and/or any Microsoft product suite that contains any of the foregoing ("Application"). If you are an entity, Microsoft grants you the right to designate one individual within your organization to have the right to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT in the manner provided above.

Or in other words, you can''t give your FREE SDK to someone else to install, and if a company is working, it has to download the SDk AGAIN for each employee, like VC. Interesting requirement for a free kit.

quote:
DirectX 8 SDK EULA e. Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may cancel this EULA if you do not abide with the terms and conditions of this EULA; in which case, you must cease all use or distribution and destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.

MS can tell me I''m no longer allowed to create DX apps?

quote:
Win XP Home EULA Installation and Use. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access, display and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than one (1) processor at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated on the Certificate of Authenticity. You may permit a maximum of five (5) ("Connection Maximum") computers or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect to the COMPUTER to utilize the services of the SOFTWARE solely for File and Print services, Internet Information services, and remote access (including connection sharing and telephony services). The five (5) Connection Maximum includes any indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted below, you may not use the Device to use, access, display or run the SOFTWARE, the SOFTWARE''s User Interface or other executable software residing on the COMPUTER.

I''m a bit hazy on this one, but it looks like a Win 98 SE system licensed for home use can''t be used on a LAN with more than 5 "devices" on it, and that includes printers, scanners, fax machines, etc. I''m pretty sure I violate that(3 other computers, 2 printers, a scanner), and I''m sure many other people do as well.

quote:
Win 98 SE EULA Systems Software. You may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT on a single computer, including a workstation, terminal or other digital electronic device ("COMPUTER"). You may permit a maximum of five (5) COMPUTERS to connect to the single COMPUTER running the SOFTWARE PRODUCT solely to access the Internet using the Internet Connection Sharing feature of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. You may not allow these connected COMPUTERS to use any other components of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, nor to invoke application sharing as described below. The five (5) connection maximum includes any indirect connections made through software or hardware which pools or aggregates connections.

Looks exactly the same as before...

quote:
Win 98 SE EULA 9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer.

It''s not really relevant, but this struct me as incredibly funny. The last sentence case as one hell of a surprise though... I''ve basically pulled out the segments that struck me as incredibly stupid, or that I think are violated by a lot of people. Am I just misinterpreting these paragraphs, or are they all really that dumb? ____________________________________________________________ Direct3D vs. OpenGL

177

Jun 16, 2002 at 6:03 PM

quote:
Original post by Promit
Well, first off I''m not the only person who uses my MSVC. Second, it says that a company has to buy a new copy of MSVC for each employee(the last bit about the "entity". Yeah right, who does that?

Anyone who doesn''t want to get sued. This type of piracy (buying one copy and then sharing it among 100 employees) is one of the biggest loses for people like Microsoft. It''s also the reason why Discreet (makers of 3D Studio Max) kept sticking hardware doggles on their products for so long, not to prevent people from making a copy to use at home, but because companies would buy one copy and install it on thirty machines for thirty different animators to use at the same type.

LockePick

108

LockePick

Jun 16, 2002 at 6:04 PM

Most of those are dumb, but I think you slipped a bit on this one:

quote:

e. Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may cancel this EULA if you do not abide with the terms and conditions of this EULA; in which case, you must cease all use or distribution and destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
MS can tell me I'm no longer allowed to create DX apps?

Yes, they can. If you don't hold up your end of the agreement they can pull theirs.

------------
aud.vze.com - The Audacious Engine <-- It's not much, yet. But it's mine... my own... my preciousssss...
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155

[edited by - LockePick on June 16, 2002 7:05:30 PM]

bishop_pass

296

bishop_pass

Jun 16, 2002 at 6:11 PM

quote:
Original post by Promit
... but this struct me as incredibly funny.

confused word usage.

177

Jun 16, 2002 at 6:16 PM

quote:
Original post by Promit
... but this struct me as incredibly funny.

confused word usage.

What happens when you''ve been programming in C/C++ way too long.

Author Mod

1,082

Jun 16, 2002 at 6:17 PM

wha? Are you talking about what I said or the EULA? The word "struct" was sposed to be "struck", but...

nes8bit

PRO

612

nes8bit

Jun 16, 2002 at 6:46 PM

Yay anal!

---------------------------------------------
Total Instant Messenger. It''s better than AOL.

558

Jun 16, 2002 at 7:04 PM

Promit - those are all MS EULA''s - and the DirectX SDK is hardly common. What about the EULA''s for other common apps - like Acrobat Reader, WinAmp or something else.

235

Jun 16, 2002 at 7:59 PM

EULA''s are not legally enforcable.

It''s a statement made by a software company to make themselves feel better about themselves; that''s all.

You did not sign anything, they did not make sure you read the contract.

"By opening this product you agree to..." <-- 100% bullshit. You can''t be forced to agree to any terms that you have not yet seen.

And it''s just as well; I''d rather not sign a contract to use a piece of software.

235

Jun 16, 2002 at 8:06 PM

quote:

e. Termination. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may cancel this EULA if you do not abide with the terms and conditions of this EULA; in which case, you must cease all use or distribution and destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.
MS can tell me I''m no longer allowed to create DX apps?

That''s bullshit too; you didn''t pay for a liscence to use the software. They offer it for free download, and once you have it, you can do anything you want with it. Microsoft has no control over the binaries once it is in your possession. You may edit them to your hearts content; if you so desire. Last I heard, Reverse engineering was still legal in this country. o_O

(that was a bit of sarcasm. Not only is reverse engineering 100% legal, but it was ENCOURAGED by the founders of our nation, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.)

Software companies have a long way to go when trying to understand the law.

Wolfmanyoda

Jun 16, 2002 at 8:18 PM

I don''t have the exact wording and I''m too lazy to search the MS site, but part of the EULA for FrontPage 2000 said that they would pull your license if you uploaded any web page that you created with FP if it "defamed" microsoft.

Wolfmanyoda

Jun 16, 2002 at 8:20 PM

you know, for some reason that part of the EULA for XP that says "no more than 1 processor" really bugs me.
Yet another reason to be happy without XP

Martee

126

Martee

Jun 16, 2002 at 9:44 PM

Considering that XP Home doesn''t actually support SMP, I''d say that part of the license doesn''t really matter too much ...

Mordoch Bob

Jun 17, 2002 at 2:18 AM

quote:

This type of piracy (buying one copy and then sharing it among 100 employees) is one of the biggest loses for people like Microsoft. It''s also the reason why Discreet (makers of 3D Studio Max) kept sticking hardware doggles on their products for so long

Actually, it''s dongles , which gets my personal vote for funniest name given to a computer component. Anyone know the history behind this?

As far as the above comment about EULA''s not being legally enforceable, my law is a bit hazy, but I''m pretty sure clicking the "I Agree" button is tantamount to giving your signature. The "by running this product" statements on the box might not be, but there have been a few cases in which software does questionable things (i.e. Kazaa renting out its user''s computer cycles to businesses) and they''ve apparently been covered by the fact that the user agreed to the terms in the EULA. Personally, I think it''s stupid that something that next to no one looks at could ever be legally binding (has anyone returned a product they paid for on the basis that they didn''t agree with the EULA?). The good news is that it''s really unprofitable to prosecute individuals for transgressions, so unless you''re a business and pirating software, you don''t really have to worry.

------------------------------------------------
The wind shear alone from a pink golfball can take the head off a 90-pound midget from 300 yards.

-Six String Samurai

235

Jun 17, 2002 at 8:33 AM

quote:
Original post by Mordoch Bob
As far as the above comment about EULA''s not being legally enforceable, my law is a bit hazy, but I''m pretty sure clicking the "I Agree" button is tantamount to giving your signature.

no, it''s been proven in a court of law; EULA''s are not legally enforcable.

I can''t find the link now, but this entire case was the basis of companies paying their senators to introduce a new law into the federal system: the UCITA. (Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act).

This new law (which hasn''t been passed yet, thank god), makes ALL EULA''s INSTANTLY ACCEPTED (and legally enforcable too) BY THE USER THE MOMENT THEY OPEN THE SHRINKWRAP ON THE BOX.

Yes, that''s right folks, you''re not allowed to see the contract before you agree to it. God bless america, where my rights are bought and sold every day by the rich millionare fucks who are more "equal" than I am.

I say we ban EULA''s. They do no good. A company has absolutely no right to tell me how to use the software that I BOUGHT from them (NOT LISCENCED. BOUGHT.).

Author Mod

1,082

Jun 17, 2002 at 8:41 AM

last I checked, clicking "I Agree" is in fact equivalent to your signature. Whether or not you actually read the contract is your own choice. You don''t neccessarily have to read an insurance contract or something like that before you sign it, but it''s usually a good idea

quote:

Promit - those are all MS EULA''s - and the DirectX SDK is hardly common. What about the EULA''s for other common apps - like Acrobat Reader, WinAmp or something else.

True - but they were the easiest to find bullshit in

Besides, I''d say that MSVC and Win 98/XP are pretty common, at least here...

Looking through a few more things now...

quote:

NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR EITHER MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS MILLENIUM, OR WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCTS AND/OR ANY VERSION OR EDITION OF ANY MICROSOFT OPERATING SYSTEM PRODUCT THAT IS A SUCCESSOR TO THE FOREGOING AND/OR ANY MICROSOFT PRODUCT SUITE THAT CONTAINS ANY OF THE FOREGOING (EACH AN "OS PRODUCT"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.

Seen this a couple times actually. I have a perfectly legal copy of XP and 98 as well, but I think this paragraph says that I can''t use any MS software unless I have their eula.txt. I''m sure that''s hard to get...

quote:
Adobe Acrobat Reader
2.4. Home Use. You, as the primary user of the computer on which the Software is installed, may also install the Software on one of your home computers. However, the Software may not be used on your home computer at the same time the Software on the primary computer is being used.

Most of the Acrobat EULA seems to be sensible, but this part looks kind of odd. "Primary Computer" is not defined in the definitions section; it doesn''t even appear anywhere else. I haven''t got a clue what it is that they''re talking about.

____________________________________________________________
Direct3D vs. OpenGL

Useless Hacker

Jun 17, 2002 at 10:24 AM

quote:
Win 98 SE EULA
9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer.

Like anyone in their right mind would be using Windows for mission-critical systems.

Arild Fines

138

Arild Fines

Jun 17, 2002 at 11:59 AM

quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
Win 98 SE EULA
9. NOTE ON JAVA SUPPORT. THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT MAY CONTAIN SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN JAVA. JAVA TECHNOLOGY IS NOT FAULT TOLERANT AND IS NOT DESIGNED, MANUFACTURED, OR INTENDED FOR USE OR RESALE AS ON-LINE CONTROL EQUIPMENT IN HAZARDOUS ENVIRONMENTS REQUIRING FAIL-SAFE PERFORMANCE, SUCH AS IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, DIRECT LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES, OR WEAPONS SYSTEMS, IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF JAVA TECHNOLOGY COULD LEAD DIRECTLY TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. Sun Microsystems, Inc. has contractually obligated Microsoft to make this disclaimer.

It''s a result of a lawsuit. They had to admit that their Java isn''t suitable for mission critical stuff, but they dislike having to admit that.

That clause is in the Sun JDK EULA too. Has nothing to do with the Sun/MS lawsuit. It''s pretty interesting that Sun actually admits that Java cannot be used for mission critical apps.

DeltaVee

Jun 17, 2002 at 1:01 PM

quote:

Or in other words, you can''t give your FREE SDK to someone else to install, and if a company is working, it has to download the SDk AGAIN for each employee, like VC. Interesting requirement for a free kit.

They just want to cover themselves. The kit may be freebut the amount of time they spend on problem solving is not. If it is downloaded for a secure site the rest assured the install will be the same for everyone. You can''t guaruntee authenticity if you don''t get it from the source. It''s basically lawerspeak for if you didn''t download it we don''t support it.

D.V.

Carpe Diem

558