Computer software terms 'unfair' - Microsoft implicated

[DrMega]

It's official. M$ and others are under scrutiny for trying to impose unfair contractual terms in their EULAs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7252707.stm

[SupaSonic]

I actually never read a single EULA till the end in my entire life.

Oh, wait, I did inspect the iTunes EULA carefully, looking for a clause where I as a user am obliged not to use iTunes to create chemical or nuclear weapons. I couldn't agree to that, of course, so i never installed iTunes.

Still looking for an open source alternative for creating nuclear weapons though. :(

[laxmanb]

I don't read license agreements either. But all licenses are legalese anyway, including GPL.

[DrMega]

I've never read one to the end. I think thats part of the point of the article. I have skimmed through some though, and as far as I can tell they could be abridged as follows:

1. If you do anything that might upset us in any way either now or at any time in the future, we will sue your pants off and declare war on your children.

2. If our software or our company does anything to upset you either now or at any time in the future, having paid for our software, it is tough luck and we are not even sorry.:)

[quinnten83]

DUH!!!
why do you think I'm sticking to linux now?
The fear of having MS hunt me down like a wild animal because I may or may have not maybe in a past, present or still uncertain future look @ their software funny, was big enough to make me switch. Now if only my work and school would accept ODF I would once again be a free man.

[Black Mage]

It would be nice if the article gave a few examples of unfair clauses.

[LaRoza]

It would be nice if the article gave a few examples of unfair clauses.

* You never see the EULA until AFTER you buy the product
* The EULA is incredibly long and confusing, unfair for consumers

These are common to all of them. Go to the store, pickup a copy of Vista (wear gloves) and try to figure out what your rights are. You have to buy it to find out...

[phrostbyte]

* You never see the EULA until AFTER you buy the product
* The EULA is incredibly long and confusing, unfair for consumers

These are common to all of them. Go to the store, pickup a copy of Vista (wear gloves) and try to figure out what your rights are. You have to buy it to find out...

Worse even, most stores (at least in the USA) won't let you return opened software for fears of "piracy". :mad:

[the_darkside_986]

Maybe they could settle this by putting a bolded disclaimer on the back of the box that says something like, "Before purchasing this software you must agree to the following: Remember, in U.S.A., software uses YOU!" or something to that effect. It may be extreme but it would keep EU off their back.

[buntunub]

As with all things legalese, there is always far more going on than what is actually being written/spoken. Lawyers and Politicians don't know how to say what they mean, or are too afraid to, because doing so may put them in jeopardy of being honest, and we just cannot have that. Seriously though, the article speaks to what we in the Free Software world are already well aware and have been for quite a long time. The real problem lies in the now well established fact that the general public is lazy and would rather swim in ignorance even in the face of losing the rights which their ancestors paid dearly for in blood. The Lawyers who contribute to this are shameless with self interest. Try actually reading some of these EULA's to get some idea of what I am speaking of.

[salsafyren]

I don't know how the situation is in the EU but at least here in Denmark, EULA are not legal because it is required by law that you accept the EULA at purchase time (which you can't do).

Also, googling EULA, I found this interesting link:

http://www.cybersource.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

It showed that the Microsoft XP EULA is more restrictive than the GPL. Ha ha, how embarrassing since Microsoft execs calls Linux communism etc.

[Black Mage]

Microsoft explicitly states that you can only install and use this software on one, and only one
computer. This does not allow you to install on two computers, and only use one at a time.
Therefore, if you had one desktop and one laptop PC, you will only be able to install this software on
one of them.
The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any single
Workstation Computer.


Well, this would make me a very unhappy customer. Not only would I not be able to return it, but my computer is too good for that software. I don't want to take out my quad-core just to run Windows.

[Krydahl]

What gets me is how any business can agree to those terms - no data privacy for anything you have on your computer. Microsoft can read it and send to whoever they like!!

[FranMichaels]

I don't know how the situation is in the EU but at least here in Denmark, EULA are not legal because it is required by law that you accept the EULA at purchase time (which you can't do).

Also, googling EULA, I found this interesting link:

http://www.cybersource.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

It showed that the Microsoft XP EULA is more restrictive than the GPL. Ha ha, how embarrassing since Microsoft execs calls Linux communism etc.

It's the opposite of everything Microsoft stands for. ;)
Steve Ballmer went so far as to call Linux a cancer (http://www.linux.org/news/2001/06/01/0003.html)

Many years have past and the tune has changed, MS loves all this open source stuff, as long as it runs on Windows.

More seriously though, the EULAs, regardless of what they are for, can often border on ridiculous (http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060102131449899).

I'm glad I haven't had to read through any in a long time. I should test out gnash again, the only PC software I'm using that is proprietary is the flash plugin (and an intel wireless driver, but I saw no EULA for that one ;) )

[DrMega]

What gets me is how any business can agree to those terms - no data privacy for anything you have on your computer. Microsoft can read it and send to whoever they like!!

Businesses are often stuck with commercial software for a number of reasons:

1. They need the security net of having someone to sue if the software causes them a major loss (although most EULAs give the software vendor protection against such action).

2. Their system are well established, and have been since before there was a viable alternative.

3. They need to use technologies that many people specialise in so that they can be sure to find the necessary staff.

An example of my second point is where a sizeable database system is in place. MySQL 5 is getting on for being as feature rich as SQL Server, but it wasn't always the case. At my place of work we use MS SQL Server for our back-end, and have done since upsizing nearly 10 years ago. At that time there was no viable alternative that met our requirements in terms of data security, transaction handling, and concurrency. Our system is now very much established and we can't afford any downtime to port it across to another platform, and then regression test all our systems, so we are stuck with MS SQL Server. This is insanely expensive, the licensing is per CPU, but we have no option.

For new companies, or where a legacy system needs replacing as it no longer meets requirements, they have the ideal opportunity to migrate to open source if it suits them. I think open source has reached maturity now so we will see more and more commercial take-up of open source software.

[Krydahl]

I know, sad but true.

That didn't stop me forwarding the PDF translating the EULA to my manager. At our work we hold data about vulnerable adults and have obligations under data protection. I'm pretty sure that EULA puts us in breach of those, technically. I thought I'd point this out. Can't hurt, might prompt them to think about moving to FOSS. Not much hope, the bill for re-training staff alone would be hideous, but it can't hurt to ask the question.