A Model End Vendor License Agreement 199
Teese writes "Low End Mac is presenting this article as a humor piece, but its vision of an End Vendor License Agreement seems to be pretty well thought out, and one that I wouldn't mind seeing in the real world."
EVLA (Score:3, Interesting)
are EULAs binding? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:EVLA (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that a click-through EULA is rationally (but probably not legally) equivalent to or weaker than an EVLA delivered to the manufacturer by certified mail, or initialled by a software dealer's employee. It's a sweet idea for a protest at least.
Furthermore, when we purchase software under a EULA, we allow a company to dictate terms to us, often terms that are onerous or not obvious. We wouldn't accept these entanglements when buying a book, a house, a car, or groceries. Why should we accept them here? For that matter, why shouldn't we have more say in the contract negotiations than "Yes or No"?
We are citizens, after all, not just consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah... (Score:4, Funny)
BUAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!
Pardon me...
Text mirror (Score:3, Redundant)
Please read the following and click on I AGREE before accepting my payment for your product.
It is the policy of the LOW END MAC USER GROUP that purchases made by members of the GROUP will only be made if the vendor of the DESIRED PRODUCT agrees to sign and approve the END VENDOR LICENSE AGREEMENT (EVLA), which you are now reading. This EVLA stipulates the following:
1. You (THE VENDOR, heretofore referred to as YOU) cannot sell my name, address, phone number, email address, social security number, model number, serial number, hair color, eye color, weight, height, or any other distinguishing characteristic without specific written permission not obtained through the use of a USER INTERFACE. Permission must be written, signed in ink, no facsimile allowed.
2. You cannot call my home, mail my home, or send email to my email address without my express permission. You must assume, by default, that permission is NOT given at registration.
3. All registration questions for your product must be written in the same format, so when choosing NO for one answer, NO is the default response for all answers.
4. Anything I make with my own computer is my property, and you cannot use if in any form.
5. Any software I install on my computer is my business, and you cannot collect information about the internal contents of my hard drive after I purchase your product.
6. You cannot require me to register a product more than once.
7. All ongoing, recurring registration expenses must be clearly explained at purchase, or I will not pay them. This includes fees for services such as
8. If I tell you that I do not want to register once, once should be enough. Do not ask me again. By clicking on AGREE, you agree never to ask me anything more than once.
9. If I attempt to quit a piece of software, YOU must make sure it does not ask me to verify that command more than once.
10. You must NEVER delete critical posts from your user bulletin boards. You may, however, clump them together.
[AGREE] [WE DONT WANT YOUR BUSINESS]
Violation of any of these conditions indicates your permission for me to stop payment on your product without returning same product, no questions asked.
You forgot the preface... (Score:2, Insightful)
They're called "shrink wrap licenses" because you usually can't read them until you've paid for the product and opened the package. And they usually say that by simply opening the package you've already agreed to the license terms that you couldn't even read until after you opened the package -- and we'll just bet the store didn't let you do that before you paid for it.
End user license agreements are designed to protect the manufacturer and may take away a lot of your rights.
retard (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"everything i code is owned by the company" (Score:2)
Re:Text mirror (Score:5, Interesting)
12. When installing your software you MUST NOT put shortcuts for AOL, Real Player, or Gator on my task tray, quick launch toolbar, start menu, desktop or startup folder.
Re:Text mirror (Score:2)
Nor install them without any explicit permission.
Re:Text mirror (Score:2)
Nor install them without any explicit permission.
ESPECIALLY if you are the vendor of one of the above mentioned products.
Re:Text mirror (Score:3, Insightful)
13. If a "full install" of the software is performed, the installation media will NOT be required to run said software.
Re:Text mirror (Score:2)
I know what you mean by that point first hand.
Two examples; Installed Office 97 on a machine. The 52X drive ate the disk on install. Finished the install with another disk. Later moving the machine to another department, I was unable to uninstall Office 97. The uninstall program asks for the original disk by serial number. Sorry MS and BSA, we made a good faith effort to uninstall it. Reformattin
Re:Text mirror (Score:2)
Wait, i purposely set it to ask me whenever I can. After all, I hate closing a big program on accident.
Re:Text mirror (Score:2)
yes!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:yes!!! (Score:2)
Vendor License Agreement to Microsoft (Score:4, Funny)
#7 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:#7 (Score:5, Insightful)
If one is selling a service for a length of time, then one had better be damn sure that they can provide THAT service for THAT length of time for THAT price.
It is especially wrong when a corporation after having offered certain terms tries to change those terms by changing the EULA one must accept to apply a patch to a 'buggy' system that should never have been unleashed on the consumer in the first place. (winBlows service packs spring to mind )
I guess my point is, screw their business model... I demand that promises(contracts) be kept!
Re:#7 (Score:2)
otherwise you just want everything your way with no responsbility to check out what you're signing before you sign it.
Re:#7 (Score:2)
That's exactly what is wrong with almost every EULA. The buyer must agree that the seller can change the terms of the contract at any time. That's absurd.
A company should have the right to include whatever restrictions or limitations they want, but only in the original contract. That way, the buyer can decide if he wishes to accept those terms. Even if the buyer studies every single line of th
Re:#7 (Score:3, Interesting)
Most credit card agreements state the same thing: by using the card, you agree that they can change the terms at any time. Your recourse is to cancel the card. I've done that once before.
Re:#7 (Score:2, Insightful)
Two differences I can think of, though:
First, the credit card companies (or, usually, the bank that issued the credit card) generally give you advance notice of any changes. You can sometimes find an insert in with your bill describing the changes that will happen next month.
Second, credit card companies aren't a monop
Re:#7 (Score:2)
Actually, I had a card issued by a bank that was bought by another bank and they raised the interest rate from 5.9% to 27.9% overnight, even though the original issuer of the card had promised the original rate wouldn't change for at least another 8 months in writing. I pa
Re:#7 (Score:3, Interesting)
You might be saying that the revised agreements would supercede the old no matter when it's accepted, but that can't be applied to both a first time installer and a repeat installe
Re:#7 (Score:4, Insightful)
Services change all the time. You can't expect a business to be able to look into the future, their business model may have to change in order to stay successful.
You are only halfway correct. They may not be able to look into the future, but they sure as heck better know what is going at present. For example, you purchase software X and it depends on your ability to access a MS .NET server on which part of the app will reside (a subscription service that you must pay for). That had better be spelled out on the FRONT of the box, or it will piss off many customers.
Think of it this way: You buy a new car. After 5,000 miles, the check engine light comes on. You go to the dealer and they say, "Oh yeah. by the way you need to bring in your car every 5,000 miles for as long as you have it and we'll reset that light for you for $500. By the way, if you let it stay on, the car shuts off after 100 more miles." That is the sort of thing that line item is trying to avoid.
Now, if the business model or pricing changes, then they can notify the users and go at it from there, but the user should not buy something of which they are not aware (the requirement to subscribe to a service).
Re:#7 (Score:2)
that's okay (Score:2)
EVLA and EULA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:EVLA and EULA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:EVLA and EULA (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept of an End Vendors agreement is wonderful, but a little impractical. Though it -might- be plausable to have a hard copy version that you use w
Re:EVLA and EULA (Score:2)
Remember the Borland EULA? It was about a paragraph long and basically said that you had to use the software "like a book", i.e., you couldn't use it in two places at the same time. That was one of the most friendly corporate EULAs I've ever seen.
Heh. Remember Borland?
Reminds me of the MapThis EULA (Score:3, Funny)
OT: Best disclaimer I've seen (Score:2, Funny)
" contents sterile unless opened "
Beautiful. Impossible to test the product to see if the disclaimer is truthful.
Maybe on my next software product I will have an EULA that states " contains no bugs unless open "
Overkill (Score:2, Funny)
Isn't restricting their use of conditional logic a little bit extreme?
Re:Overkill (Score:4, Funny)
It's a security drive. The well-known if programming construct is old-fashioned, and therefore a security risk. Instead, you are now required to do everything via polymorphism and virtual methods. That way the form doesn't matter, you see...
stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:5, Funny)
I have a better idea. Make them agree that when you pay them, you are only giving them A LICENSE to use your money. You can revoke that license (i.e. get your money back) at any time, and for any reason. Would there be a failure of consideration (thus making the contract void for ya non-legal peeps)? No, due to time value of money. You get the money back, but not with interest. So they did get some consideration - the use of your money until you ask for it back.
Yeah, you'd still probably have to sue them to get them to quit pirating your money (violating the license agreement), but we can start a BSA type group to enforce such horrible, criminal violations on a large scale. I mean, come on.... taking a license to use someone's money and not giving the money back when the license is revoked is
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Pit bulls are bred to be aggressive, period. This doesn't mean they're monsters, but it means that they're dangerous, plain and simple. There are hundreds of case examples in my home state [Florida] alone of them turning on thier owners or strangers, despite never having been mist
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)
And, I'd imagine, they'd get more "sales". I'd also suggest and end date; ~3 years maybe?
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Of course, you'd need to deal with all the *AA orginasations...
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
Problem is Revenue Recognition (Score:2)
Re:stop payment? I have a better idea.... (Score:2)
the point with the stores is.. (Score:2, Insightful)
End users protection association (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:End users protection association (Score:3, Funny)
We need a Better Business Bureau like association for EULA's. Where software companies can get their software certified and then being able to display a seal of approval on the packaging by having their EULA user friendly. There could be different levels of friendliness and reviews on software that didn't want to apply for certification.
We already have something like that, but unfortunately the corporations beat us to it. The seal of approval you speak of bears the wording "Designed for Windows XP" (or
Print it on the back of your check (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all the different from the $2-$5 checks that periodically come in the mail, which by cashing sign you up for some stupid, inanen service that nearly no one actually needs...
Re:Print it on the back of your check (Score:2)
Re:Print it on the back of your check (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but that should cut both ways. The next time you buy some software that you might have a click-through EULA, have the neighbor kid install it.
Re:Print it on the back of your check (Score:3, Interesting)
Once bosses that do have the authority to make such agreements become aware that kids are putting their endorsement stamp next to agreements they don't want them making, it becomes their duty to stop them from doing that... they c
Re:Print it on the back of your check (Score:2)
Regardless, there is no new consideration for the new contract terms written on the check. Thus it's not binding, even if the agent did have authority to make
then EULAs are similarly invalid (Score:2)
But oddly EULAs have been upheld by at least one court.
Re:then EULAs are similarly invalid (Score:2)
Re:then EULAs are similarly invalid (Score:2)
Re:then EULAs are similarly invalid (Score:2)
Re:then EULAs are similarly invalid (Score:2)
Re:Print it on the back of your check (Score:2)
Here's a better one (Score:3, Funny)
This check is fully warranted against physical defects and poor workmanship in its stationery. If the check is physically damaged, return it to me and I will replace or repair it at my discretion. No other warranty of any kind is made, neither expressed nor implied including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of Merchantability, Suitability for Purpose, and Validity of Currency. Any and all risk concerning the actual value of this check is assumed by you, the recipient. Even though I or my agents may have assured you of its worth, either verbally or in written communication, we may have had our fingers crossed, so don't come whimpering back to me if it bounces.
The money, if any, represented by this instrument remains my property. You are licensed to use it, however you are not allowed to copy the original check except for your personal records, nor are you permitted to give the money itself to anyone else. Neither may you allow any other person to use the money. Remember, you may have it in your possession, but it still belongs to me, and I'm going to call on you from time to time just to keep tabs on it.
This agreement supersedes all others between us, including the equally ridiculous one you have undoubtedly pasted on the back of your packaging, or concealed somewhere in the middle of it. The location of your version of this or any other covenant between us is irrelevant to its inapplicability here. Only this one pertains, and I really mean it. In fact, this one supersedes yours even though yours may say that it supersedes mine. Why, even if yours said it would supersede mine even if mine said it would supersede yours even if yours said... Oh well. You get the idea.
You may decline this agreement by returning the uncashed check to me within twenty-four hours. If you attempt to cash it, however, you have implicitly accepted these terms. You may also implicitly accept these terms by:
1) Calling my bank to inquire about the status of my account;
2) Thanking me at the conclusion of our business transaction;
3) Going to bed at the end of this or any other day; or
4) Using any toilet or rest room.
Please be advised that I have adopted a strict rubber-glue policy. Any nasty thing that your lawyers say bounces off of me and sticks back to you. Be further advised that you agree to pay my legal expenses if I decide to sue you for violating this agreement or for any other reason that might strike my fancy. Violations will be punishable by fine, imprisonment, death, any two of the above, or all three.
Another counter-EULA (Score:2, Informative)
See also the Software Vendor License Agreement [cexx.org].
Legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
This type of thing (what is mentioned in the article) would work, but only if a vast majority of consumers decided to join such a group. I say we find a way to protect the rights of everyone.
Legislation... is unnecessary (Score:5, Insightful)
In several Western countries, you cannot legally sign away your basic rights. It doesn't matter what the vendors put in a contract, EULA or any other document, how much you pay for it or what you have to sign. Those rights are yours, and a court will ignore any documentation that doesn't respect that.
This is why you find disclaimers in things like EULAs that if one part is found not to hold, the rest still does, etc. It's also why big businesses like Microsoft are terrified of a serious test case that might establish a precedent that EULAs have no legal weight because of the way they are set up. The net effect is that they rely on threats of legal action to get what the EULA would seek to secure for them, because it's the best chance they've got in most places and they know it.
This is not to say that you should flagrantly ignore things you know to be in an EULA unless you want to play dice with the courts. But you're pretty safe in ignoring any unreasonable conditions, because it's about a 110% certainty that they won't be legally enforceable anyway.
No, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, and Slashdot is not the place for serious legal discussion. But use your common sense: no court is going to uphold something as manifestly unreasonable as a contract you supposedly agree to before you even have chance to read it. In fact, some places even have laws to the effect that if you can't reasonably be expected to understand a contract, you can't legally have entered into it. Not sure EULAs would fall within that, but it would be an interesting case...
Re:Legislation... is unnecessary (Score:2)
So what's to stop a bunch of us here from writing a software package, selling it to another
Or am I missing something?
Re:Legislation... is unnecessary (Score:2)
Re:Legislation... is unnecessary (Score:2)
I wouldn't be so quick to judge the courts everywhere. For example, if you crack into someone else's system in the UK, you're committing a crime under the Computer Misuse Act
Re:Legislation... is unnecessary (Score:2)
Thanks, I couldn't remember the legal term for the concept.
That is certainly true. It's kinda hard to see how you could understand and consent to a contract by opening some shrinkwrap, when the text of that contract is within a box inside the shrinkwrap, though...
Send them the EVLA after purchase (Score:5, Funny)
Just write up your own EVLA and mail it to them, remembering to include the following:
If you do not accept the terms of this agreement, you have 14 days to reimburse the purchase price plus sales taxes and the software product will be returned to you. Failure to return the money within 14 days indicates acceptance of the agreement, which supercedes all End User Licensing Agreements past, present or future.
Then if the manufacturer ever gets around to replying to you, tell them you are not responsible for returning the product; the store where you bought it will send them one. Or if the store contacts you, direct them to the manufacturer.
Windows Refund option (Score:3, Insightful)
Who knows you might get a refund. If enough people did this it would create some sort of legal precident that might be useful later.
Uhh.. Yeah... (Score:2)
of course, if it has no form, the vendor has my express permission to use it...
By clicking on AGREE, you agree never to ask me anything more than once.
Except for deletion requests, which you must ask me about at least three or four times, just to prevent me from being a butthead, and deleting the known univer [CARRIER LOST]
Actually.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Would this be possible? Feasible? Ok prolly not but still, it'd be cool.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually.. (Score:3)
Not in Texas it doesn't. Texas is a "right-to-work" state. More importantly, the concept of unions run contrary to the Texas way of thinking... always have.
It's just a cultural thing.
--Richard
Re:Actually.. (Score:2)
Not in Australia. The right to join/not join a union is up to the individual employee, and the employer can't discriminate against an employee/potential employee based on union membership.
Of course, this opens up the case where we have now some companies with (say) 50% union membership. The union negotiates an Enterprise Barganing Agreement with the employer, which benefits all employees, not just union members. So a law was passed that allows unions to charge non-union members a nominal fee for negotiatin
Failure to comply with this EVLA.... (Score:2)
Re:Failure to comply with this EVLA.... (Score:2)
SVLA (Score:3, Informative)
Overall, the linked EVLA is more user-oriented - it has demands that are annoying to some end users such as "don't make me click more than once", "don't ask me twice if I want to quit", "ask me to register only once", etc., etc.
Even though it does qualify as funny, it doesn't really address what should be in this kind of "agreement" and definitely doesn't address the terms and conditions that are imposed by most EULAs. These conditions include restrictions on types of use, reverse-engineering, vendors' rights to revoke license at any time, vendors' rights to invade users' homes, users' non-existent rights, etc., etc.
If you would like to look at a more serious document related towards this issue, look at Software Vendor License Agreement [cexx.org] that I found before. That would seem more fair to me.
They missed a couple (Score:5, Insightful)
12. You must never install software on my computer that connects to a remote server, unless the software first obtains my permission to do so, and explains what information will be sent to the remote server.
End Online Newspaper License Agreement (Score:2)
2. I don't want your Javascript, cookies, or ActiveX.
3. I don't want more than one pop-up ad.
4. I don't want to ^&%&# register. Your registration process is cumbersome and doesn't work correctly. Besides, you as a corporate newspaper have the heavy burden of persuading me that you are not merely the propaganda-outlet of some part of some vast corporate conspiracy. Tracking what stories I read adds to my distrust
Notification (Score:4, Interesting)
I shall continue to use the software based on the rights granted to me by the fair use provisions and the first sale doctrine.
Should you desire to have the software returned, I am willing to sell my copy back, at the price I paid for it (plus $100 for shipping and handling), but only if you do not try impose any more terms and conditions on this return sale.
This offer is valid for a 7 days. If I do not hear from you in that time, you have implicitly and irrevocably accepted my purchase of the software, non-acceptance of your EULA, and my fair use rights to it.
Yours sincerely
...
P.S. non-disclaimer: Since you have not paid for me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, I reserve the right to publish what ever you send me.
Re:Notification (Score:2)
I know this sounds crazy, but what software di you get to install after you declined? I hit decline on some, and it refused to continue the install. The worst part is the store refused to refund the purchase price.. Grrr. I'm going to start taking my computer to the store. I'll only pay for the software if I click agree on the EULA.
The biggest EULA rejection I now do is the one that opens you to an audit at any time and any
Re:Notification (Score:3, Informative)
>you get to install after you declined? I hit
>decline on some, and it refused to continue the
>install.
That is a sort of forced agreement situation, that is, you go to a store and buy something, then someone (which happens to be the one who manufactured what you bought, not the one selling it by the way) tries to force you into an agreement when you try to use something that you bought. Such agreements are not valid in most countries I would say (th
Similar Idea. (Score:2)
Browser identification string (Score:2)
Important, read carefully before serving me any web pages!
Definitions:
Browser: The program used by me to visit your site.
Server: the person responsible for the web page my browser is requesting at this time.
Browser type: The type (brand/version)of this browser.
By serving me web pages you agree to the following:
1. You will only serve me pages that are fully compatible with Browser type I use. If you are unable to do
Re:Vader License Agreement (Score:2)
Re:Help??? (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah.
Quit trying to post to slashdot and get back to work.
--your boss
Re:n is whatever the last number was (Score:3, Interesting)
Aw crap, sorry about that; I forgot to put in the paragraph tags. My post should read:
n+1. Seeing that I paid for this software, I shall use it as I see fit. There are to be no restrictions on use.
n+2. I may reverse engineer anything I damn well please to make your product interact properly with another, or to get around your DRM restricting my legitimate use.
n+3. My desktop, quick launch bar, the top of my Start menu, my StartUp menu, my NT services, and the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Micros
Re:But ... (Score:2)
There! Problem solved.
Re:But ... (Score:2)
You don't need an army of lawyers, since this is on a per purchase base the total value (especially with most software) that would be lost due to a violation of the agreement is less than £5000. Last time I checked, £5000 is the upper limit for the small claims courts, which would cost you a meagre £250 (last time I checked)+ your time to bring a case against that vendor. Now the vendor automatically has to pay someone to go there, there is a very real pos
Re:Nice idea (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of people are still buffaloed by EULA's. Instead of blasting the issuer for stupidly wasting time and money paying lawyers to write rules that have no legal leg to stand on (something those lawyers know full well if they're not complete incompetents), they complain about the draconian restrictions and duties these rules impose
Re:Nice idea (Score:2)
And because I can do damn well INSTALL my software, I need to click on that, even if I do not agree.
They need to put an EULA on the outside of the box. 2 clauses are needed.
#1. We are not responsible for fubaring your system. (Even the best software can do that)
#2. Do not copy
That's all that is needed.
Anything else is fluff and lawbombing.
Re:Need help choosing a new computer (Score:2)