EULAs Don't Have To Suck

jfruhlinger writes "The ubiquitous EULA — reams of baffling text imposing draconian terms on software users — infuriate most Slashdot users and are routinely ignored by everyone else (until they suddenly cause trouble, of course). But it doesn't have to be that way. Several European countries are considering laws mandating user-friendly EULAs, and some companies provide them voluntarily."

I hate EULAs

[weszz]

Here at work EULAs have become an INCREDIBLE pain in the past month... We not need everything we download to use approved that it is free for commercial use if the company didn't buy a license.

I can't use Virtual Clone Drive since the website says it's free, the developer says it's free, everyone says it's free but the EULA doesn't specifically say that.

I hate EULAs. (Plus an interesting note, RealPlayer apparently cannot be used in a commercial environment at all, or so says the EULA.)

Re:Step 2

[HarrySquatter]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/09/the-end-of-used-major-ruling-upholds-tough-software-licenses.ars [slashdot.org]>O Rly? This is an oft-related but false meme perpetuated on slashdot. Specific EULAs have been held up in court a number of times. Now certain clauses in certain EULAs have been struck down but that is not the same thing you claim.

Re:Click-through GPL.

[Bert64]

You only have to accept the licence if you want to distribute, it does not apply if you are simply using the software...

Most commercial EULAs prohibit distribution altogether, and place restrictions on use too, and thus demand that you agree to them before you can use the software at all.

Re:Click-through GPL.

[arielCo]

Ahem, you actually have to *agree* to its obligations. You are granted a license, and there's a copyright holder:

Who has the power to enforce the GPL? (#WhoHasThePower)

Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhoHasThePower [gnu.org]

Re:Click-through GPL.

[Richard_at_work]

The license is most certainly optional on GPL software - for the GPL v2, see sections 0 ("Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program)") and 5 ("You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.").

For the GPL v3, see section 9 ("You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program.").

If I do not wish to modify or distribute, I don't have to accept the GPL at all.

Re:Click-through GPL.

[Baloroth]

No you don't. Not to simply use it. See ClickThrough [gnu.org] page which addresses this exact question. Shame on OP for not posting it.