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 389618
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: EULA are probably illegal
by boldingd on Fri 16th Oct 2009 20:39
in reply to "RE: EULA are probably illegal"
Member since:2009-02-19
Well, that's kinda true in general. I gather that, whenever any given contract is taken to court, it's likely that some clause somewhere will be found to be unenforcable. There's a "which parts of this document are enforcable" step in all contract negotiation.
I think.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-12-02
The best thing to do with them is ignore them. I don't know if one has ever been tested in court, but since no one aside from the legal team that wrote them has any clue what they mean, I doubt they would hold water.
Some EULA's have been tested in court and found to be valid, others have found to have invalid clauses. The problem with EULA's in this sense is everyone of them has to be tested to see if it is valid or not. There is no across the board ruling.