Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Oct 2009 14:47 UTC
Let's do a little trip down memory lane. We're talking the '80s, early '90s, and we're looking at a company called Borland, which produced several well-known and popular products related to software development. Back in those days, Borland had an end user license agreement. However, contrary to the EULAs we know and despise today, Borland's 'No-Nonsense License Statement' was a whole lot simpler, and in fact, is a perfect example of how software should be treated.
Thread beginning with comment 389469
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Unicorns and Pixies...
by license_2_blather on Thu 15th Oct 2009 23:49
in reply to "Unicorns and Pixies..."
Member since:2006-02-05
The book analogy falls apart at so many levels. Are you allowed to make a copy of a book for archival purposes? That would be no - certainly not where I come from.
Not here, either. But books don't have spinning hard disks that are prone to failure. Books don't run on OSes (cough *Windows* cough) that randomly consume themselves and your software and data like some electronic Jim Jones.
Have you ever lay in bed with your kids reading with them? One of the greatest rewards a parent can experience. But wait, doesn't that mean that more than one person is reading that book at once? So why shouldn't I be allowed to have my software installed on my computer and my kid's computer too?
Not the same thing. Your lying-in-bed-with-your-kids analogy is more akin to me sitting in front of my computer with my kids beside me, collaborating on a family photo project, or helping them with their homework. Like the book example, we are using one copy of the software, on one computer.
In over 25 years in this industry I have on numerous occasions come across business people who have a single Office license and have Word and Outlook installed on the receptionists computer, Excel on the accounts person's computer, and Publisher and Powerpoint on their marketing person's computer. Because as far as they're concerned they aren't doing anything illegal - and according to your article they would be right - no different to buying a box set of your favourite trilogy and different people reading each of the books at the same time is it?
Is this really the sort of thing that keeps software execs up at night? Or is it people making (and worse, distributing in large quantities) entire copies of the software? In other words, the same thing that movie studios, record companies, and yes, book publishers, have to worry about?
OK, that's beside the point maybe, as the EULA could prohibit "splitting up" use of the suite. But some software company going after some small business that did this (but didn't use more than one copy of any particular program at one time) hardly shows good faith.
The reason we have complex licenses is because of people who take this attitude. People who want to use something that has particular terms associated with it's use but don't want to abide by those terms so they hide behind the "well I never signed anything" crud.
Never signed anything? How about never got the opportunity to read it?
You don't typically see the EULA until you open the box, or worse, start the software install. Then, whoops, you don't agree with it. So you take it back to the local Best Buy, and they tell you, too bad, we don't give refunds on opened software packages. How is that fair to the consumer?
And software isn't by itself in this boat. What about buying a DVD that you then can't show to more than a certain number of people without it being considered a public screening? There is no difference here - there is a condition of use associated with the product. If you don't like the terms and conditions don't use the thing.
Easy to say. But good luck on those Ts and Cs with software -- see previous comment.
And therein lies the crux of the problem of verbose licenses - too many consumers think good will should only be a one way street...
Oh, spare me. Aside from my points above, software companies don't even have to give you a quality product -- and often don't. If my washing machine has an inherent design flaw, some regulatory agency forces the maker to issue a recall/exchange/refund (or some class-action attorney beats them to it). If my software is crap, too bad -- can't take it back, I already opened it. EULA exempts software maker from any quality metric, and the FTC and other like agencies look the other way, or don't take any interest.
I like the "book" license because it is simple, understandable, and software is in most ways (maybe not all) like a book. But let's not kid ourselves; EULAs are the way they are because software makers have been allowed to get away with them.
RE: Unicorns and Pixies...
by Carewolf on Fri 16th Oct 2009 17:28
in reply to "Unicorns and Pixies..."
Member since:2005-09-08
Member since:
2006-04-03
The book analogy falls apart at so many levels. Are you allowed to make a copy of a book for archival purposes? That would be no - certainly not where I come from. Have you ever lay in bed with your kids reading with them? One of the greatest rewards a parent can experience. But wait, doesn't that mean that more than one person is reading that book at once? So why shouldn't I be allowed to have my software installed on my computer and my kid's computer too?
In over 25 years in this industry I have on numerous occasions come across business people who have a single Office license and have Word and Outlook installed on the receptionists computer, Excel on the accounts person's computer, and Publisher and Powerpoint on their marketing person's computer. Because as far as they're concerned they aren't doing anything illegal - and according to your article they would be right - no different to buying a box set of your favourite trilogy and different people reading each of the books at the same time is it?
The reason we have complex licenses is because of people who take this attitude. People who want to use something that has particular terms associated with it's use but don't want to abide by those terms so they hide behind the "well I never signed anything" crud.
And software isn't by itself in this boat. What about buying a DVD that you then can't show to more than a certain number of people without it being considered a public screening? There is no difference here - there is a condition of use associated with the product. If you don't like the terms and conditions don't use the thing.
If I can ask this Thom. Take your favourite and most used piece of software. Now, imagine that the company that sells it is going to implement the "sign at purchase" policy you mentioned. Are you still going to use that software? What if they added a clause that allowed them to modify the license at their discretion? You'd certainly be thinking twice yes? And why? Because suddenly you've had to sign something rather than abide by a "good will" agreement you made by using the software previously. And therein lies the crux of the problem of verbose licenses - too many consumers think good will should only be a one way street...