

Show HN: What do you think of this short End User Licensing Agreement? - latitude
http://pastebin.com/C91fEqAf

======
SEMW
> The company reserves the right, exercised in its sole discretion, to revoke
> your license at any time.

That clause makes sense for online services. But for packaged software --
really? If I buy a piece of software, I don't expect the developer to have the
power to decide, at their whim, that I'm no longer allowed to use it. Even
Microsoft EULAs (e.g. <http://goo.gl/IE8RN>) don't purport to give them that
power.

~~~
latitude
But how come it makes sense for online services then?

I've seen this in more than one license to date, I'd say it's not that
uncommon. From what I can tell, this is a way to deal with the unforseen abuse
situations.

~~~
SEMW
> But how come it makes sense for online services then?

Because, as you just said, it's a way to deal with unforseen abuse situations.

But that justification only works for online services (or other situations
involving shared or limited resources). It doesn't make sense for standalone
software. What does 'abuse' even mean in that situation? Is Excel going to
complain to its union rep if I make it work 80 hours a week?

~~~
latitude
A software being used to facilitate the spread of malware.

Or being used as a part of a scam operation.

Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's
brand.

~~~
josephlord
So someone doing those things is really going to care that their license was
revoked?

Also how is it revoked? Can you revoke it for everyone by updating the website
or will you contact people in writing individually.

Drop the clause or limit it to breach of other clauses. The clause will stop
anyone depending on the software wanting to use it and bad actors won't care
that they don't have a license.

~~~
latitude
Alright. Color me convinced.

Though limiting it to the breach of other clauses doesn't make much sense
under the same argument - those who are breaching hardly give a damn about the
license.

~~~
josephlord
Yeah you would probably have to put some more restrictions in to make it
worthwhile but as it is it only scares the honest.

------
ams6110
EULAs are basically meaningless. Nobody reads them, and everybody knows that
nobody reads them. Also you generally can't disclaim your liability for
damages caused by your gross negligence, and a judge, not an EULA, will decide
if you have done that, should someone be aggrieved enough to take you to
court.

------
csense
> You cannot sell, rent, lease or lend the software.

I am not a lawyer, but AFAIK this clause is unenforceable in the US.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine>

~~~
rogerbinns
This is why these "agreements" start out saying the software is licensed to
you, not sold to you.

~~~
archangel_one
They can say whatever they want, but it's still not necessarily true or
enforceable. The Wikipedia page linked above describes rulings by the European
court which suggest that they consider that software _is_ sold rather than
licensed, in which case it can't be contracted out of as this tries to do.

------
archangel_one
I don't especially care for license agreements, but it does seem better that
they be simple like this than fifty pages of legalese. On the other hand, I
don't especially like that this keeps some of the most typical objectionable
clauses of such agreements:

Clause 1: you disclaim any fitness for purpose? Not only is this likely
unenforceable in many jurisdictions, it seems distinctly weaselly to sell a
product and attempt to claim that in the fine print.

Clause 2: does that mean if it erases my entire hard drive, you're not
responsible? Seems a bit not cool; though I can understand wanting to avoid
claims if it crashes and data is lost, it seems overly wide-ranging.

Clause 4: I have a perpetual license, until you decide it's over for no reason
at all and that's that - in which case I get no consideration or refund?

Clause 5: as csense mentioned, at least parts of this would seem unenforceable
too.

I guess maybe it makes it seem worse that it's all laid out starkly without
all the jargon to mask them; they're not uncommon clauses to include in such
agreements, of course.

~~~
latitude
Clause 1 is a standard DISCLAIMER in many O/S licenses. That's the source of
it.

Clause 2 - Correct. This is a straight-forward translation of the legal speak.
Again, fairly standard, you've just not been paying attention :)

Clause 4 - As I explained in another comment, this yet again appears to be a
standard way to protect against unforeseen abuse. For example, someone's using
the software to facilitate phishing ops or something to that end.

Clause 5 - The lease/rent/lend is a standard clause in many licenses, e.g.
[1]. The "sell" clause also made an appearance in several I looked at, so it
only seemed reasonable to combine these two.

[1] [http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/sysinternals/bb469936.asp...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en-
us/sysinternals/bb469936.aspx)

~~~
archangel_one
Yep, I understand that those clauses are common in many agreements. Doesn't
change that I just don't care for any of them, though :)

I think having them laid out that might make me more likely to react to them
than if they were buried in a whole lot of jargon, which makes a slightly
unpleasant case for longer agreements :(

------
latitude
I have released several projects under conventional multi-page licenses,
covering everything from not suing "licensees of data providers" and force
majeure (that may or may not be different from the acts of God). This time
around I have a simpler project and I want to try a simpler plain-spoken EULA
that boils down to this:

    
    
      1. This is an "as is" software 
    
           that may break
           in which case you won't go after the developer
    
      2. You won't do objectionable things with the software 
    

Have anyone tried this?

There's just such a stark difference between, say, a BSD license and a license
that comes with a typical Windows/Mac software. But since BSD clearly works,
so why not try and keep things simple?

 _EDIT - > added "that boils down to this"_

~~~
rogerbinns
That doesn't work at all if it is the actual wording. For point 1 you can find
warranty wording in any number of open source or creative commons licenses.

For the second, objectionable requires a definition. For example many would
consider the US drone assassination program objectionable, and hence tar US
companies and people with the same brush. Does that mean US companies and
people can use the software? How many steps do they have to be removed (eg is
providing the payroll software to the defense contractor a problem?)

<http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA>

Because of copyright laws, people can do virtually nothing with software. If
you actually want to give the user freedoms - see
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> \- then pick a well known free
software license since it will have already addressed all these issues.

~~~
latitude
No, duh. Of course this is not the actual wording.

It is here instead - <http://pastebin.com/C91fEqAf>

------
betterunix
I would not agree to it. I cannot modify the software? Why not? Why should you
have the right to revoke my right to use this software?

~~~
latitude
Well, then you don't agree to it.

> _I cannot modify the software? Why not?_

To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions.

Also, the "cannot modify" clause is a weaker version of a universally used
"You shall not decompile or reverse-engineerthe software", which is also
frequently coupled with "You will not try and defeat, deactivate, bypass,
remove or otherwise circumvent any software protection mechanisms". I don't
think it makes much practical sense, but this _is_ an industry standard.
Virtually every proprietary software license is locked down this way.

~~~
betterunix
"> I cannot modify the software? Why not?

To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions."

Then why not just say that? Why not just say, "No support shall be provided if
the software has been modified without authorization?"

"I don't think it makes much practical sense, but this is an industry
standard. Virtually every proprietary software license is locked down this
way."

Yes, well, when I said that I would not agree to it, I meant it -- because I
do not agree to proprietary licenses with such terms (i.e. I do not use
proprietary software).

------
csmatt
Why not a standard set of symbols to cover all of the standard stuff? You
understand what the symbol means one and no longer have to check for something
that might be skipped in.

------
petersouth
I used Oracle's as a template. I'd briefly read through theirs and see if you
missed anything important.

