Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Making Sense of Software EULAs

Posted by Hemos on Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:05 AM
from the not-withstanding-the-above dept.
Government The Courts News
Brian E. writes "An informal Clearware.org poll indicates that 67% of the 66 respondants never or rarely completely read end-user license agreements (EULAs). Clearware.org aims to make sense of software by proposing guidelines for vendors to characterize end-user license agreements. Defined characteristics include terms and conditions found in existing EULAs that impact control over the user's experience, privacy and system security. The guideline extends on the idea of Creative Commons' commons deed and RDF/XML metadata formats. This simplifies EULA terms in a consumer friendly way similar to care labels on clothing, nutrition facts on food and warnings on hazardous materials."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Making Sense of Software EULAs 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • 67%? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) * <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Monday April 17 2006, @11:08AM (#15142677) Homepage Journal
    An informal Clearware.org poll indicates that 67% of the 66 respondants never or rarely completely read end-user license agreements

    67%? or Perhaps 66.666666667? :-)

    I'm still thinking that 33% of respondants lied if they say they always completely read the EULA.

    • Yes (Score:5, Funny)

      by dotpavan (829804) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:17AM (#15142739) Homepage
      I'm still thinking that 33% of respondants lied if they say they always completely read the EULA.

      Yes, you are right, they answered it that way because they hadnt read the question completely. :)

  • Typo in the summary..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mayhem178 (920970) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:09AM (#15142682)
    I believe it should read:

    An informal Clearware.org poll indicates that 67% of the 66 respondants never or rarely comply to end-user license agreements (EULAs).

  • Sample of 67? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mpapet (761907) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:11AM (#15142693) Homepage
    Get back to me when there's more, many more, data points.

    Based on my experience, I know of one other person who knows what an EULA is even though they never read them.

    Guidlines might be good though. The downside is an EULA may become more enforceable.
      • try +/- 12%

      • Re:Sample of 67? (Score:5, Informative)

        by say (191220) <.on.hadiarflow. .ta. .evgis.> on Monday April 17 2006, @03:40PM (#15144541) Homepage
        No. The standard error (SE) is sqrt((p(1-p))/n) = sqrt((0.67*0.33)/66) = 0,057879185. If we are aiming for our standard 95 % confidence, the margin of error is 1,96*SE = 0,11344. It has a margin of error of 11 %, meaning that the true number is 67 % +- 11 % with 95 % confidence. I don't know much about the methods and people behind this test, so it's hard to say what population this statistic is correct for :-)

  • The one true license (TM) (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Troll TROLLING PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991
    Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Troll's Foundation, Inc.
    59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

    Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
    of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

    Preamble
    The licenses for most Troll's are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the Troll Trolling Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free Troll's--to make sure the

  • IANAL (hate that acronym), but as I recently understood it, EULA's are in almost all regards unenforcable as they are contracts forged under duress. I pretty much have stopped reading them.

    • Re:I thought these were unenforceable (Score:5, Interesting)

      by schon (31600) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:24AM (#15142779) Homepage
      Or do what I do - change them to something you do agree to. After all, a company is trying to unilaterally modify the terms of a contract after it's be executed (ie the software purchase), why shouldn't I have the right to do the same?

      I find that doing something like:

      echo "You may use this software as per your local Copyright law" >EULA.txt

      works wonders for me.

      I have no problem clicking "I Agree" after reading that.
      • Do you send a letter to the company after purchase saying "my use of this program is subject to included terms and conditions?" If not, you're not talking about the same thing.

      • Re:I thought these were unenforceable (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fossa (212602) <pat7 AT gmx DOT net> on Monday April 17 2006, @11:36AM (#15142872) Journal

        Here here. I saw this on slashdot some time ago... but has anyone tried paying for software in cash wrapped in a EULA that might, for example, nullify any EULA contained within the software box? I know your average store clerk couldn't care less... but it would be satisfying just the same. If witnessed, could such an act carry any weight in court in the event of a suit by the software publisher against you for violating the EULA? It certainly couldn't carry any less weight than the EULA?

        I hate EULAs that look like a retail sale, and I hate non-CDs sold as if they were CDs. What happened to integrity?

      • A new hobby for the bored (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Antony T Curtis (89990) on Monday April 17 2006, @12:40PM (#15143320) Homepage Journal
        If you have the time and the money, here is a new hobby for you....

        1. Buy lots of software at your local big-name retail outlet.
        2. In your excitement, rip open the boxes and get access to the EULA.
        3. If the EULA is on the CD, open the CD case, load the CD and get to the EULA.
        4. Disagree with it.
        5. Return the software in opened packaging, for a full refund.
        6. If your big-name retail outlet refuses then the software vendor *must* refund it,
        7. No you will not pay for shipping. You will happily throw it all in the trash can if they refund the money.
        8. If they don't want to refund, take them to small claims court.
        9. Argue that the full EULA should have been visible on the outside of the packaging in reasonable size type.
        10. If you are vision impaired, argue that the Braile EULA should be on the packaging too or that typeface should be large print.

        Remeber to keep copies of your receipts and correspondences!

    • Re:I thought these were unenforceable (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rydia (556444) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:27AM (#15142805)
      You're confusing duress and adhesion. There is nothing per se invalid about contracts of adhesion (ie, you only have one source for a certain thing). In this case I'm not even sure that it would be an adhesion contract- depending on the software, there's usually a competing product that would be (if not ideal) practicable for your purpose.

      The real question about EULAs are whether they are preempted by the doctrine of first sale. Generally they are not so long as the packaging contains a notice that there is a contract either in the supplied documentation or digitally on the medium. Courts don't expect publisher to shrink long contracts that are of reasonable length for their purpose down to the size of a box, nor is it their responsibility to have a printed copy in the store, as the publisher does not control the store.

      A system on the box akin nutritional facts is a fantastic idea- if it were done properly as a standard, it would clear up a lot of confusion regarding EULAs.
      • There is nothing per se invalid about contracts of adhesion (ie, you only have one source for a certain thing).

        No, that's not what a contract of adhesion is. In fact, for most contracts of adhesion (insurance, etc.) there are many sources for the same product or service. What it really refers to is that there is such a difference in bargaining power between the two parties of a contract that one can basically just dictate long, complex, and inequitable terms.

        Contracts of adhesion are not per se invalid, b
      • In this case I'm not even sure that it would be an adhesion contract- depending on the software, there's usually a competing product that would be (if not ideal) practicable for your purpose.

        There is nothing binding in a EULA. They are basically something that lawyers have invented to give themselves some extra cash.

        EULAs are given to minors just the same as adults, and minors are not eligible to sign a contract. They merely have to click on the "Accept" button to install the software just like the rest o

    • Re:I thought these were unenforceable (Score:5, Informative)

      by AhtirTano (638534) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:34AM (#15142858)
      IANAL either, but I quote one here:

      So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been.

      Don Shelkey [okratas.com]

      • Re:I thought these were unenforceable (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hackstraw (262471) * on Monday April 17 2006, @01:25PM (#15143617) Homepage

        EULAs are not binding legally, ethically, or practically.

        TOSes are. A business reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. I cannot expect service from McDonalds when I'm sitting there for days on end with a toy gun in my hand threatening to kill anyone in the store.

        If I don't agree with a EULA, I can and will still use the software. If I do not agree with a TOS and the service provider terminates my service, I'm SOL.

        Software is software. Maintenance contracts, updates, customer support, are a service. If I don't meet the minimum for said service, I get no service. In fact, the company is entitled to go out of business and terminate such service if they feel like it.

  • 66 ? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Phil246 (803464) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:13AM (#15142712)
    66 respondants is statistically insignificant. They might as well have said " 66 people say that the sky is falling "
    • >> 66 respondants is statistically insignificant. They might as well have said " 66 people say that the sky is falling "

      and how many stat courses did you take? 66 could be statistically significant, if one insured that each sample was i.i.d.
      Drawing confidence intervals would be trivial.
    • The sky is falling.

      There's one.

  • PROBABLY BECAUSE READING ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS IS SO ANNOYING.

    And a little more white space didn't kill anyone (at least I'm fairely certain of it). In short, the EULA's I've seen, are designed to annoy the reader as much as possible.

  • Two words: (Score:4, Funny)

    by mustafap (452510) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:22AM (#15142768)
    I agree

  • New EULA Guidelines (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gunfighter (1944) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:23AM (#15142774) Homepage
    I can see them now, nice and bulleted for the undereducated, illiterate masses the US public education system is spewing forth:

    • Don't steal this software
    • We're not liable for any bad stuff caused by this software
    • We don't guarantee this software will do what we actually say it will do
    • Install this software, and it means you let us control your computer
    • Install this software, and you give up all your privacy rights
    • Assimilate to the borg controlling this software
    • Install this software, and you agree to cut down the mightest tree in the forest
    • (with a herring)
    • etc. etc.

    • Actually, bullet points are not a bad idea in contracts. An agreement that is hard to understand is hard to agree to.

      If we demand clarity in user interfaces and in coding, why not in contracts?

      I'd love to see some eye-camera studies of people reading EULAs ... Paging Jakob Nielsen [useit.com] >

  • The guy has a good idea, but doesn't understand what to watch for in an EULA. Things like indemnification clauses, limitation of liability, waiving of consumer law rights, requirements to arbitrate in some place favorable to the vendor, and similar clauses need to be flagged. It's worth looking at those. Even within Microsoft's products, the clauses differ considerably. Their products aimed at business tend to have considerably more reasonable terms than the consumer products.

  • The Rules (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZachPruckowski (918562) <zachary.pruckowski@gmail.com> on Monday April 17 2006, @11:27AM (#15142800)
    The first rule of the EULA is "We do not talk about the EULA"
    The second rule of the EULA is "WE DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE EULA"
    The third rule of the EULA is "You may not read the EULA"
    The fourth and final rule of the EULA is "No matter what, everyone signs"

  • Move along (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Billosaur (927319) * <`wgrother' `at' `optonline.net'> on Monday April 17 2006, @11:29AM (#15142814) Journal

    From Clearware.org:
    Number of Voters: 92
    First Vote: Sunday, 02 April 2006 03:22
    Last Vote: Monday, 17 April 2006 16:24

    Move along... Nothing to see here... this has been going on for over two weeks and has only 92 votes. This sample is so unrepresentative it's not funny. When they have well over 10,000 votes and have done a statistical analysis based on age, gender, household income, etc., let me know.

    • Domain ID:D118697403-LROR
      Domain Name:CLEARWARE.ORG
      Created On:18-Mar-2006 15:55:54 UTC
      Last Updated On:29-Mar-2006 12:06:06 UTC
      Expiration Date:18-Mar-2007 15:55:54 UTC
      Sponsoring Registrar:Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR)

      Given that the domain has only been registered a month (give or take a day) that's to be expected; but yes I agree. Move along, nothing to see.

      What there is to see--is another "org" formed to support the obvious. Come on folks? 2/3rds of people don't completely read long, confusing and officious lega

    • It is worse than that. Your comment is perhaps a bit misguided in two ways. First, even if this poll gets 10,000 particpants, we should still not trust it to provide us with results of the population at large, or even about the population of readers of that site. The reason is that the particpants are not being chosen randomly, they are self-selecting. Therefore, the only thing we can infer from this poll is about the actual participants in it. On the other hand, depending on what effects were interest

  • why not... (Score:3, Funny)

    by penguin-collective (932038) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:29AM (#15142819)
    just adopt the HAZMAT signage directly for software? I mean, it seems to cover pretty much the same ground.
  • I don't think I've ever read a EULA past the first sentence. Mostly because I don't care what it says. I'll do whatever I want with the software.

  • What is an "EULA"? (Score:3, Funny)

    by ettlz (639203) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:32AM (#15142840) Homepage Journal
    Eula (oi-LAH) n. Stage name for a Swiss mathematician turned gangsta rap artist.
  • Either Blizzard is lying or the Clearware "deed" is...
    (See http://www.clearware.org/index.php?option=com_con t ent&task=view&id=7&Itemid=11 [clearware.org] )

    [_] Age Limit. There is no age limit to use the software.

    Also, this would pretty much seem to make the "deed" useless:

    [_] Additional Terms. You agree to additional or modified terms or conditions.

    (Sorry for the 2post - meant to post this as a legit user.)

  • Why would any vendor do this voluntarily? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith (263124) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:37AM (#15142877) Homepage
    The whole purposes of these EULAs is not to communicate clearly, nor to negotiate a good-faith bargain, but to manipulate consumers in putting their apparent agreement on record.

    A landlord has no interest in pointing out that the "standard lease form" he shoves at you is one of many, and that he picked the most one-sided one he could find. He is certainly not going to say "Actually clause 16 is against the law and unenforceable in this state, but I hope you don't know that because most of my tenants don't and its a minor but valued source of extra profit for me."

    Car rental companies were required to print their agreements in a certain type size so that at least it was possible to read them... if you didn't mind holding up a line of people behind you... and they responded by printing them in larger type, but using a color scheme of dark grey on white grey.

    Food companies don't list their ingredients on the label because they like the idea, but because they were dragged kicking and screaming by the Pure Food and Drug Act and its successors. And they constantly negotiate for weaselly exceptions. For example, ingredients must be listed in order of predominance, but they are allowed to say "beef and pork" as long as the food includes both beef and pork, even if there is more pork than beef...

    In what way would a clear-language EULA serve the interest of the vendor?

    If it did, in fact, serve the interest of the vendor better than the current murky EULAs, I suspect some vendors would be using them already. If, as I believe, it does not serve the interest of the vendor, then why on earth would they agree to use them unless required to by law?
  • I want to be them obsfucate. And stay that way. I want them to stay as worthless as they are right now (contract law around here is saw that in the way an EULA is handled (aka putting restriction on use after sale) it is illegal).

  • There's just a problem... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kjella (173770) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:38AM (#15142886) Homepage
    ...those that draw up the EULA doesn't want it to be clear, nor short. Seriously, if you knew that the other party is going to sign it anyway, wouldn't you want to put in as many catches for the customer and freedoms for yourself as you can, preferably obscured both in terms of size and language? In the worst case, you can tell the customer "that's not what it says, you're reading it wrong" and in the worst case a court will say "no, that part of the EULA is not valid". You lose nothing by trying, not having a "standard" license isn't any disadvantage because there's no major standard.

    I wish there was a "BSA General End-User License Agreement" which contained all the usual legalese, and if software wouldn't use it they'd need to "explain" why they can't use it. Then you could get some proper legal analysis of it that would be reusable on all other software using the same license. When DRM comes to enforce all the currently unenforcable restrictions, I think we will need it. As it is, I click "I Agree" and ignore with impunity because I can and because spending $1000 to have a lawyer go through a 20-page license for a $50 product where there's no room for negotiation is ridiculous.

    To me, if it acts like a sale I treat it mostly like a sale. Copyright, limitations on number of installs/users, private/commercial use, disclaimers and perhaps a few other things ok, the rest... fuck off. The toothbrush company don't get to tell me when, what, how or where to brush my teeth, what brands of toothpaste works or how to use it together with mouth water and dental floss. And I mean that even if they put "By opening this packaging, you agree to the terms and conditions. If not, you can return it for a refund" on it.
  • The problem with EULAs is not the confusing legalese, it's the content. Would you buy a car from someone who demanded that you waive all rights to sue, even if he deliberately comitted fraud? Would you also agree that he still owned the car, and that he could grant you a license to drive it as long as you never benchmarked it (looked at the speedometer?) Would you agree that he could lock the wheels or take it back at any time for any reason?

    And if you did agree to that with your boss'es money, would you expect to keep your job?

    Anyone who agrees on behalf of a corporation to a typical commerical EULA is guilty of serious crimes, especially criminal negligence.

    Andy Out!
  • Just remember what the acronym stands for: End User Loses Always.

  • Not an issue (Score:4, Funny)

    by voice_of_all_reason (926702) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:44AM (#15142923)
    All EULA's have some sort of sentence near the top reading similar to: "By purchasing this product, you agree to..."

    There's your loophole right there. The rest of you aren't actually paying for any of this crap, are you?

  • this is a good thing (Score:4, Funny)

    by pulse2600 (625694) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:49AM (#15142964)
    similar to care labels on clothing, nutrition facts on food and warnings on hazardous materials."


    This is EXACTLY what we need...I envision a big label across the Windows Vista CD: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: VISTA MAY CAUSE LUNG CANCER, EMPHYSEMA, AND BIRTH DEFECTS."

  • eula wiki (Score:4, Informative)

    by rjnagle (122374) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:57AM (#15143019) Homepage
    lately, I've been trying to keep track of all of the EULA's I've been agreeing to. It's overwhelming.

    This wiki
    http://www.gripewiki.com/index.php/EULA_Library [gripewiki.com]

    is trying to keep a public record of eulas (along with some analysis).

  • Web Sites Prevent Reading EULA (Score:3, Informative)

    by BoRegardless (721219) on Monday April 17 2006, @11:59AM (#15143048)
    Many download sites make you click "Accept" buttons, but if you actually try to READ the damned 15-25 pages of the EULA, you find the web site "times out" and you can't then proceed with the purchase/registration process.

    No wonder people don't read them. I don't do it online anymore.

  • Kill All The Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Detritus (11846) on Monday April 17 2006, @12:04PM (#15143077) Homepage
    I get depressed every time I read an EULA. They disclaim all responsibility and warranties, basically saying that if they deliver useless crap, you will just have to smile and be grateful that they relieved you of all that excess money. You have to be a lawyer to know what parts are enforceable, what parts are questionable, and what parts are legal bullshit. It isn't a negotiated agreement between two parties, it's the strong dictating terms to the weak.

  • Blame the Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday April 17 2006, @12:19PM (#15143192)
    Speaking as a software engineer I can honestly say that I despise writing these things as much as most users do reading them. However, they are unfortunately very necessary in the often litigious society in which we live if for no other reason than to protect the author from frivolous litigation. Even if you give your software away for free you still have to include those clauses disclaiming liabilities for "loss of business" (on a free product no less, but some people really do have that much nerve), "merchantability", and/or "fitness for a particular purpose", and all the rest of that crap. If there were fewer asshat attorneys that sue anyone at the drop of hat then these types of verbose agreements would not be as necessary. You say "just use the GPL" but that is not always an option because of certain clauses in the GPL that limit ones ability to restrict access to trade secrets. I am not knocking the GPL, if you want to license your work under those terms then go ahead, but it is not always possible from a business standpoint. The excessive legalese in our society is an antibody to the excessive amount of litigation, in fact I have read, cannot remember the source, that the United States spends as much as 2% of GDP on lawsuits which is many times more than any other developed nation in the world. So we don't like those long EULAs either but the lawyers made us do it.

  • Are "licenses" subject to sales tax? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by DrVomact (726065) on Monday April 17 2006, @12:27PM (#15143240) Journal
    I've been wondering about this. A lot of EULAs seem to say (as far as I can understand them) that I don't really own a copy of the software--I just have a license to use it under the terms of said license. Now, if I'm obtaining a license and not really buying anything, can such a transaction be subject to sales tax? It's like charging sales tax when I put money in a parking meter--I'm not buying the parking space, just the right to use it for a limited time.

    I'm probably completely of the mark...but if I were right, what fun it would be to challenge the right of states to collect sales tax on software because of the EULA! I bet courts would start ruling EULAs invalid right and left...

  • EULAlyzer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by antdude (79039) on Monday April 17 2006, @01:45PM (#15143773) Homepage Journal
    There is a program called EULAlyzer [javacoolsoftware.com] that could help to understand the EULAs clearly and better.
    • >3. If you break the license, how do i get my money back

      Problem is, in most EULA, there is NO way for them to break the contract since they promise nothing and have no responsaibilites.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.