Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 25th Jun 2010 22:56 UTC, submitted by fran
Thread beginning with comment 431652
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why is it acceptable for Google to have a license agreement that limits user control over a device, but wrong for Apple's Mac OS X to have one? Explain.
It's the nature of EULAs to be not acceptable, even though you're forced to agree / accept it. All the EULAs that I have ever seen basically say;
"You are only licensing this software, you don't own it, if we feel like breaking it so it no longer works, tough crap for you. Thank you for paying us."
That's also why EULAs aren't generally considered legally binding, especially since the majority of them pop up as soon as you start to install the software, and because of the way software authenticates nowadays (mostly CD KEY based) as soon as you open the box, you can't return it. So even if you don't agree to the EULA, you have already spent the money on it and can't return it. So you would be stuck with software that you couldn't use.
Retarded is really the term for it. Gone are the days when you can buy software and actually have it 'belong' to you.
At least in the closed source world. At least with open source projects, even if they want you to pay for them, they will provide source code so you can make your own modifications.




Member since:
2009-04-23
Why is it acceptable for Google to have a license agreement that limits user control over a device, but wrong for Apple's Mac OS X to have one? Explain.