Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

May I Have Your EULA Please? 342

Posted by Cliff from the draconian-branded-paper-scraps dept.
LionsFate asks: "Just like the subject says. I want End User Licence Agreements (EULAs). I'm starting a database of as many EULAs as I can get. I want to know the first EULA that said we can't reverse engineer their software. I want to know the first that said they can watch our activities. I want to know how the NES agreement differs from the GameCube. Did Nintendo lighten, or tighten restrictions? I'm looking to generate a time-line of EULAs and how they have changed. What permissions we have been given, and taken away over that period. What rights did we have in Windows 3.1, compared to Windows XP? How has the MPAA and RIAA changed our 'legal rights' on software as a result of their effort? Watched Napster or other P2P software and seen the changes in their EULAs? I'm starting my EULA database at here and I need as many EULAs as I can get to populate the database. If you can, please email me any/all that you can. I'm hoping within a few weeks to have the site online." Ask Slashdot last tackled the topic of EULAs in this piece. It would be interesting to grab a nice sample of EULAs across the last 2 decades to see what has changed, if anything.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

May I Have Your EULA Please? More

May I Have Your EULA Please?

Comments Filter:

  • Prohibitions (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZaMoose ( 24734 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:18PM (#3974194)
    Don't a lot of EULA's have prohibitions against reprinting them in full in settings other than their original form?

    Are you a bit worried about the legal ramifications of such a database?

    • Re:Prohibitions (Score:5, Interesting)

      by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:22PM (#3974235) Homepage Journal
      Don't a lot of EULA's have prohibitions against reprinting them in full in settings other than their original form?

      If you don't agree to the terms then you should be able to print the EULA! The question is whether or not you can copyright a legal document such as the EULA.

      As for the database itself. I can't stand to read the damn EULA's when I buy the software. Why would anybody want to go and read them off of a website? Yuk.

      • Re:Prohibitions (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Florian Weimer ( 88405 )
        As for the database itself. I can't stand to read the damn EULA's when I buy the software. Why would anybody want to go and read them off of a website? Yuk.

        Perhaps because you don't want to download all the software just to discover that you can't accept the EULA terms?

      • Re:Prohibitions (Score:5, Interesting)

        by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:36PM (#3974348) Homepage
        I suppose it would be very useful if a front-end app were built to parse "layman's questions" about a EULA. IE, "does EULA #49493 prohibit me from XXXX?". The web app could then work its magic and answer the question quickly and hopefully in understandable terms!

        This is a great idea, much better to have a central resource than rely on heresay and FUD...

        • Re:Prohibitions (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Indras ( 515472 )
          Or, here's more useful information:

          "What will legally allow ?" So then you can get a nice list of which pieces of, say, music playing software, will allow a certain right.

      • You sure can (Score:3, Interesting)

        by drew_kime ( 303965 )
        The question is whether or not you can copyright a legal document such as the EULA.
        See here [techlawjournal.com] for the dry, legalistic explanation, or here [techtv.com] for the analysis.

        Essentially, Texas (and many other states) passed a building code "by reference." What this means is that they wrote a law saying, "Construction Company Consortium Foo has published a building code called Bar. It is now the law. Ask them for a copy." Builders are now requiored to follow a law they are not legally allowed to view, except by buying it from the industry association that wrote it.
        • Texas (and many other states) passed a building code "by reference." What this means is that they wrote a law saying, "Construction Company Consortium Foo has published a building code called Bar. It is now the law. Ask them for a copy." Builders are now requiored to follow a law they are not legally allowed to view, except by buying it from the industry association that wrote it.

          There's a challenge to the building code copyright, on the basis that the intent of the model code was for it to be written into law, so writing it into the law is fair use and then copies of the law are then not copyrighted (though the model code, with the identical words, still is).

          Of course if that loophole for the building code pans out it won't apply to ELUAs. They were never passed into law by a legislature, so their copyrights (if any) are rock-solid.

          They're a CONTRACT. As such they're the work product of one or more lawyers, probably a work-for-hire so the client owns the copyright. Contracts are allowed to be secret. Making a few extra copies of one you have signed or are considering might be fair use. But putting the full text of one in a database and publishing the database almost certainly isn't.
          • Contracts are allowed to be secret. Making a few extra copies of one you have signed or are considering might be fair use. But putting the full text of one in a database and publishing the database almost certainly isn't.

            I could see that logic being applied to a negotiated contract; Company X may not want Company Y to know what Company Z's terms are. But EULA's are boiler plate and distributed to anyone who buys the software. They're not exactly secret, and I could be considering accepting the EULA for almost any software product at anytime.

        • Re: Veeck v. SBCCI (Score:5, Informative)

          by wendy ( 42400 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @05:04PM (#3974523) Homepage
          The Fifth Circuit recently overruled that panel opinion, holding that people could not be barred by copyright from reading or copying "the law". See here for more. [texoma.net]

    • Re:Prohibitions (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MrResistor ( 120588 ) <peterahoffNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:25PM (#3974260) Homepage
      So, you go through the EULAs and create a summary for the ones that don't permit republication, and post the summary instead. If you really want to be a bastard, make it really obvious who doesn't want the public to know what's in their EULAs.

    • I'm pretty sure I once clicked through a EULA where I promised my first born son and regular virgin sacrifices...

      The legality of certain portions of the eula are dubious at best. Not to mention that once something like this finally went to court, this sort of compilation of EULAs would be part of the discovery process!

      You gotta love lawyers. Especially when one of 'em is your wife.
    • It appears USC Title 17 also has a prohibition... IANAL, but I can't see anything that would exempt EULAs from the typical restrictions on copying material.

      Might have to make a summary of the EULAs rather than posting them word for word.
    • He didn't say he wanted a bunch of EULAs to contractually agree with. He just wants to read them. None of the stuff will apply to him. It probably won't apply to the people sending the EULAs to him either, unless they signed something, got consideration, etc.

  • Now the next generation of EULA's will say... (Score:4, Funny)

    by MrKevvy ( 85565 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:19PM (#3974204)
    "...You agree not to post this EULA in a EULA database..."
  • The eu has just put up a huge (70,000 pages)
    site about europian rights
    here's the link relating to unfair contracts in the uk [eu.int]

    basicly it says you can ignore any shit or non plain language in the contracts, anything thats in contrntion lends to the side of the consumer.

    all good stuff

  • EULA forbids sharing (Score:2, Informative)

    by cmburns69 ( 169686 )
    Read your EULAs first. I've seen some (though I don't remember where) that forbid the publishing of the EULA.

    C.M.Burns
    • You could get around those simply mby omitting the text but making reference to the company, product, and timline, and then note you couldn't publish it.

      Likely, it'd be the only notable thing about the EULA worth keeping on record.
    • That sounds contradictory. There's no EULA to cover the EULA. The EULA covers the software, not itself.

      What if I didn't agree the the EULA of the product, and never opened it? Would I be in trouble for reproducing it? Are EULA's copyrighted? (I'll have to go look at a few now..)
      • >>There's no EULA to cover the EULA

        But there is US law to cover the EULA, assuming you're in the US. Reading through USC Title 17, I see no excemption that would make EULAs public domain. May have to summarize them.
      • What if I didn't agree the the EULA of the product, and never opened it? Would I be in trouble for reproducing it?

        Then you don't have a contract with the other party, which means if it's copyrighted you don't have a license to redistribute it.

        Are EULA's copyrighted?

        Yes, if the author/client wants them to be.

        And since the US copyright law was "harmonized" with the Bourne Convention they don't even have to SAY that they're copyrighted to be copyrighted.
    • Rather hard to type out a EULA without reading it. . .

  • Are you sure it is legal? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    EULAs maybe copyrighted material after all.

    • Re:Are you sure it is legal? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bouncings ( 55215 ) <ken&kenkinder,com> on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:39PM (#3974377) Homepage
      I'm not sure about that. An agreement is between two parties. That would mean that both parties should have equal rights to the document itself to share with their lawyers, business affiliates, or whoever else they deem appropriate. ie; If you can't copy it, then neither can the software company.

      Of course, like all legal matters, Slashdot readers have the authoritative opinion. NOT. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV. Usually.

    • I believe that by default virtually anything that you "create" including things like an EULA are copyrighted, unless that right is specifically waived.

    • Ever heard of fair use? It's outlined in the copyright act explicitly exactly what people are allowed to copy and the conditions under which such copying is allowed.

      Quoting EULA's, even if they are copyrighted, would be completely legal in the context of a compilation such as this, so long as suitable credit is given, as would be the case with any academic work. This sort of compilation is being put together in the interests of reseearch and education, so fair use applies.

  • If you succeed, (Score:2, Funny)

    by oni ( 41625 )
    in a few months, EULA's will contain a provision that prohibits the posting of EULAs!

  • Way to get around copyrights (Score:5, Funny)

    by EvanED ( 569694 ) <evaned@noSpam.gmail.com> on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:22PM (#3974236)
    If you really have time, you might want to try to make an English translation of the EULAs so you're not breaking the copyright on them.
    • lol... and then.

      "You agree to not keep a copy of this EULA so you don't know how bad we're screwing you."
    • If you really have time, you might want to try to make an English translation of the EULAs so you're not breaking the copyright on them.

      The original Copyright covers translations, too.
      • By "translation", I was trying to play on the difference between the English that normal people speak and the English lawyers speak. If you really can't figure out what I meant, here is my post reworded:

        "If you have time, you might want to make a list of the restrictions the EULA makes and put that into a database so you're not breaking the copyright on them."

    • I have your translation right here: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We are $BIG_CORP. You're just an individual. Bend over like the bitch that you are because we have enough money and lawyers to crush any opposition you might present. Have a nice day, and enjoy your limited rights to use $BIG_CORP products.
    • You can't do it; an English translation of the EULA would clearly be a circumvention device. Illegal under the DMCA of course.

  • First no-benchmarks EULA? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crow ( 16139 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:24PM (#3974249) Homepage Journal
    One point to watch for would be the first EULA that prohibits publishing performance benchmarks. This is now fairly common for high-end software, and is one of the more evil provisions out there.

  • You can reverse engineer, regardless of the EULA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tim Ward ( 514198 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:24PM (#3974250) Homepage
    Provided you live somewhere civilised, of course, like Europe for example.
  • Sumbitted the following:

    Windows 2000 Advanced Server
    Dungeon Siege
    Mechwarrior4
    Quicktime6 for Windows
    SimCoaster

  • OT:Windows XP EULA (Score:3, Funny)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:26PM (#3974274) Journal
    Has anybody counted up how many pages of EULAs you are obligated to read in order to install Windows XP with full updates? I think I'll put a running total on my webpage.
    • No, but I was just installing Windows 2000 Pro into a VMWare device. To install Service Pack 2, I had to accept the EULA for the control that checks to see what updates you need, the EULA for the widget that downloads the SP2 installer, the EULA for the SP2 installer, and the EULA for SP2.

      Then I went down to the local burrito stand and somehow they forgot the EULA for my burrito! Ignorant bastards.

  • EULAs... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by *xpenguin* ( 306001 )
    $ cd eulas/
    $ ls -1 | wc -l
    412
    $ du -h
    513M .
    $ cd ../
    $ tar -czf eulas.tar.gz eulas/
    $ ls -lh eulas.tar.gz
    2MB eulas.tar.gz
  • But seriously.... I hope the database has a line for entering the date and the exact product. EULAs change over time, even for the same product, and it'd be interesting to discover changes.
  • My question last time [slashdot.org] the EULA article came around never seemed to be answered so I'll try again.

    In short, for a hobbiest programmer who doesn't want to release his code under an "open" licence, what can they do if EULA's cannot be legally enforced? If this means, that they're going to be held liable if the program breaks then you're getting to the point when you could get in legal hot water.

    Secondly, I hate sounding dense but can someone give me a PROPER description of the legality of these EULA's with both purchased products and downloaded items. I've heard so much stuff at the moment about whether or not EULA's are legally enforcable (with different rulings in different countries) that I'm not sure what the hell is going on.

    If you have to start your post with IANAL (or similar) then please don't bother replying! It would be nice to have some solid facts instead of comment or guesswork!

  • There should be a checklist of rights taken away by a EULA, and then have a client that will check software you're installing. So before you do your shopping, you can check the database with certain checkboxes, and choose from the list of returns. Or maybe do it on a point system (like SpamAssassin for EULAs). If a large enough userbase was formed that sales hurt enough by having an overly restrictive EULA, then it might be able to persuade some companies to change their EULA to something more reasonable. You might even be able to get past any copyright issues about publishing the EULA if you don't publish the text of it, just the checklist.
  • you had a rating system and a flexible reporting module, such that, for example, one could track the restriction level of Microsoft OS licences across the years or distribution channels, and such...

  • All OS softwares should license as easy as this:


    You can do whatever you want with this software, including making money and making yourself filthy rich. However, if you modify and improve this software, you must make your modification available to anyone who requests it, including the source code of your modification, and without imposing any extra conditions.

    And if you are caught distributing this software, you'll receive a pad on the back for doing the good job.

    Ah well, just a simpler version of this [gnu.org]

  • My favorite EULA (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:38PM (#3974370) Journal
    http://www.osdn.com/terms.shtml [osdn.com]

  • Wow! That's a lot of work... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dbCooper0 ( 398528 ) <[ten.notirt] [ta] [cbd]> on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:41PM (#3974394) Journal
    No way am I gonna re-install all my OSs and Warez to cut and paste all that text!

    Tell ya what: gimme an account on yer FTP server and I'll upload them to you - you can do the work :)

    ps: How many gigs ya got free?

  • It's a Trick! (and some questions too) (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Inexile2002 ( 540368 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:42PM (#3974396) Homepage Journal
    Someone out there wants to market a random EULA generator and they're using /. to make up the data!

    Seriously, an EULA DB sounds like an excellent idea, but I have an implementation question. Have you considered marking them up in XML (a huge task, I'm sure) so that they can be searched for certain provisions? Reasoning here being that without good internal markup, you pretty much need to read through the whole EULA to compare it to another. Being able to search through the archive for different examples of specific clauses, specific allowances or provisions would be much more useful than simple searches for IE v.4 vs v.5

    Good luck though, this is an excellent idea, and I like the idea of seeing included in a software reviews lines like: "...and the EULA scores a 3.4 of 5 on the standardized EULA Draconian scale..."

  • EULA Creation (Score:5, Informative)

    by vergil ( 153818 ) <vergilb.gmail@com> on Monday July 29, 2002 @04:45PM (#3974416) Journal
    After you've read through a dozen EULAs and TOS (Terms of Service) Agreements, you'll realize that the vast majority of shrinkwrap/clickwrap adhesion contracts are substantially similar.

    Most tech journalists fail to understand this -- evidenced by the ever-popular "New EULA Disclaims Implied Warranty of Merchantability!" articles.

    Most EULAs do not contain new, inventive or clever language. After all, they're essentially standard form contracts -- otherwise known as boilerplate -- meaning that one choice of forum/ anti-reverse engineering clause looks pretty much like another.

    I spent around a year (while at the Consumer Project on Technology) sifting through EULAs and contract related law, such as UCITA. Occaisionally, I would find an odd clause that appeared particularly draconian. I archived a few of those here [cptech.org].

    The EULA clauses I found most fascinating were the ones that: 1. purported to limit benchmarks/criticism of a software title (McAfee), 2. Specified favorable choice of law/forum jurisdictions, 3. attempted to squelch parodies of a software publisher's title (Microsoft).

    (yeah, I was the guy that submitted the previous, EULA harvesting Slashdot article). If you want any help dealing w/ EULAs, drop me a line.

    Sincerely,
    Vergil

  • It looks like evrything was of untill 1990, when TVT put in the public performance clause.
    then in 1992 the lending clause made it's nasty way in there.

    1989 tvt (UK):
    "unauthorized duplication is a violarion of applicable laws."

    1990 tvt (UK):
    nothing except the standard copyright 1990!

    1990 tvt (Australia):
    "unauthorized public performance, broadcasting, leasing and copying of this disk is prohibitred"

    1992 tvt (uk):
    "unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performance broadcasting of this disk prohibitred"

    1994 tvt (uk):
    "unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibitred"

    source:
    a few CD's of my cd rack.
  • ... I mean ... we've all thoroughly read through all the EULA's we agree to, right? I mean it's not like we just click, sign, or higlight our acceptance without reading what we've agreed to, right? Wait one gosh darn minute, are you trying to tell me that people actually don't take the time to read the EULA that comes with the service they're buying?

    Hey, fine print was invented for a reason, to screw the EU over.

    • I always tried to read a good chunk. So, after a while I gave up buying all software. Cost too much in time to install.

      It's one of the reasons I dislike the GPL. I know exactly what the BSD, Apache, X, etc. licenses say. But I only have a general understanding of the GPL, so given the choice I use and produce BSD licensed code.

      Ahh.. for the good old days, when if you screwed someone over they'd simply linch you -- not claim license violation. Much simpler.
  • One item that I find of particular interest is the EULAs which specifically forbid the end user to do a) performance testing on the software or b) publish any results of a performance test unless the vendor is given prior notification. The vendor reasoning is that there are too many variables in any performance test so any result is skewed. But these types of experiments are important especially when the vendor is make a claim about how great their performance is, and whether certain software will do the job in a given scenario.
  • I will gather every EULA I can and send it in.

    Great idea!
  • I would guess that the rundowns of answers should read something like this:

    I want to know the first EULA that said we can't reverse engineer their software: I would wager it was one of the first pieces of software when copyright became a concern. Probably one of the first flavors of MAC OS or Windows.

    first that said they can watch our activities: Which came first? Gator or WinXP? Maybe a version of IE or Media Player before these?

    I want to know how the NES agreement differs from the GameCube: Did the NES even have an agreement? Have fun and enjoy? I can't remember ever having one, of course the box/manuals/instructions went away a long time ago. Did Nintendo lighten, or tighten restrictions? Now, with the potential to rip Gamecube games, I would guess that the Gamecube has much tighter restrictions.

    What permissions we have been given, and taken away over that period. What rights did we have in Windows 3.1, compared to Windows XP?: I'd guess that we've been given many additional permissions. Windows 3.1, IIRC, didn't really have much in the EULA regarding the Internet. I don't think it was a huge factor at the onset.

    I will try my best to find some of these older EULAs. I'm pretty sure I've got WIN 3.1 sitting around somewhere. I can fire it up and see where it leads.

    Really though, as time goes by, I think companies want to protect their product as much as possible. They're more and more concerned with "piracy" (--I'm not raping and pillaging, so how is it piracy?) and the like, which is just another reason to change how users can use their systems. There are certain ways where this doesn't affect the majority, ie the reverse engineering clauses, but when you start to deal with things like privacy invasions, that affects almost all users, excluding those not on the net or with decent firewalls.

    MS and Mac have been concerned with things like this from practically their beginnings. Palladium is MS's next step in restricting consumer rights, dictating what you can and cannot put on your own computer.

    Just my $.02. I'd write more, but my day is done, and I'm going home from work now. Later.
  • I can see it now, the day after a major software package is released, the site slows to a crawl as everyone scrambles to check out the EULA so they're not left out of the chat around the water cooler!

    ~Philly
  • Collecting and redistributing EULAs be in fact a violation of the terms of the EULA in the first place? Oh the irony...
  • I think this project is slightly reminiscent of work done at the Maximegalon Instititue for Slowly and Painfully Working Out the Suprisingly Obvious. Let me save you a little work.

    Here, in a nutshell, is the heart of every EULA.

    All your base are belong to us.

    Steven

  • All your base are belong to us!
  • One more advantage of this site is that it will allow you to read the EULA of a piece of software you are considering without having to download, buy, or un-shrinkwrap it.
  • Hop on Gnutella, Kazaa or your favorite P2P application and search for "eula" or "license.txt".

    You'll get tons of them from people sharing their C: drives to the while world from Windows boxes.

    Using the "Find" utility on this NT box yields EULA's for Acrobat, MS Messenger, MS Chat, NetMeeting NT, Microsoft Internet, Winzip, MS Office, and Internet Explorer.

  • great idea .. here's something I'd like to see (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dr. Awktagon ( 233360 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @05:40PM (#3974743) Homepage

    I've thought about this myself. What I wanted to do was "color code" each phrase/sentence in the EULA, and come up with some "EULA-description markup language" for it. There would be a different color for each of these categories:

    Redundant text (pink or gray maybe) - anything that repeats copyright law, i.e., "you may not distribute copies"

    Dubious text (red) - anything that attempts to limit your rights further than copyright law, i.e., "you may not use this product to disparage microsoft" .. I call it dubious because this is the stuff that shouldn't be binding unless you've signed a contract.

    Descriptive text (blue) - anything that describes the behavior of the product or the company, i.e., "if multiple versions of this product are detected, we will drop a bomb on your grandmother's house", or "this product will delete the competitor's product upon installation". This isn't really "license"-related, but describes the product.

    Rights-granting text (green) - anything that says you have permission from the copyright holder to do things you're not otherwise allowed to do, i.e., "you may distribute copies verbatim if you include this copyright notice"

    Filler text (light green) - this is junk that you should ignore completely, such as any "summaries" (if the license is binding, it's the LICENSE that's binding, not any summary they may have written for your benefit). This also includes the stuff in the GPL about "freedom", which is nice to know, but not necessary.

    Imagine having each license color-coded like this, you could even view thumbnails of the licenses to see which one was best, showing the different blocks of color at a glance. For instance, the GPL would probably be all "Filler" and "Rights-granting" and you could visually see that it indeed is more "consumer-friendly" (lots of green) than the average microsoft license (lots of red).

    Also note, any license that says "the terms of this license are subject to change" should be treated specially (for instance, all BRIGHT RED), since, for all intents and purposes, it may change *completely* at any time, and could conceivably be 100% Dubious and should be treated as such.

    I'd love to see something like this combined with a database of licenses.

    • Also note, any license that says "the terms of this license are subject to change" should be treated specially (for instance, all BRIGHT RED)

      most (if not all) commercial licenses would then be bright red. a simple flag, in addition to the rest of it, would probably be better

      interesting idea, but it assumes that the amount of "damage" or "good" that a clause does is proportional to its length, this could be very misleading.

    • This idea is interesting, but flawed. All you are measuring is the volume of certain types of text, not their impact.

      I could write a license that explains your right to eat bananas, and a few sentences that give me the right to drain your bank account, elope with your daughter, and reposses your cat.
    • Those are almost all good ideas (highlighting the whole license red when the terms allow changes is a bad idea). You could further enhance this plan by copying an idea from Creative Commons [creativecommons.org]. They use five symbols to represent different characteristics of a license.

      You could apply a similar system to ordinary EULAs. If the license grants you new rights, use a picture of lady liberty. If the license restricts you more than copyright alone, use a picture of lady liberty in hand cuffs. If the license allows spying, use a picture of someone in the shower as seen through binoculars. If the license allows the copyright holder to change the terms, use a picture of the devil holding up the contract.

  • Eventually (Score:2, Funny)

    by lazn ( 202878 )
    Everyone knows that eventually all the EULA will say will be:

    "All your base, are belong to us."

    And your only buttons to push will be:

    "Somebody set us up the bomb!"
    Or
    "Cancel"

    ==>Lazn

  • Versions (Score:2)

    by Puk ( 80503 )
    Remember to get the different versions (preferably dated) of the EULA they put on the same version of the same software, depending on whether it's a student or normal retail version, or after they discovered a glaring mistake/hole/customer-outrage-causing-clause.

    I have some vague (possibly fault) recollection of their being different versions of the controversial MS FrontPage EULA, and possibly some others.

    -Puk
  • Last month I was cleaning house, and tossed at least 100 old manuals for computer games. Dating back at least 10 years.

  • In case there is any doubt about where things are going, here is the Ultimate EULA:

    You agree that I can do anything I like, and that you have no power whatsoever.

    You agree to say only good things about me.


    (I once knew a 3-year-old who said things like this.)
  • Unless they've changed something with the GameCube that I don't know about (I don't have one yet), there are no licensing agreements for the end-users of Nintendo hardware or Nintendo-licensed software. There's a warning in the back of instruction manuals of recent games against copying, but that's all it is: a warning. Heck, we're talking about a company that has historically relied on nothing more than physical incompatibilities bewteen regional consoles (number of pins in NES vs. Famicom, plastic tabs in cartridge slots of SNES, N64, etc.) to separate their markets.

    If you want to talk about SDK user and/or game liscencing and such, I can almost guarantee you that those licenses have mellowed dramatically over the years (from "Thou Shalt Not Release Games on non-Nintendo Systems for 4 Years" through a number of lawsuits to "Hey, we're just glad you're coding for our console").
  • According to folklore in the database world,
    Oracle was the first to have the restriction
    for publishing performance data.
    This is documented in here [eweek.com]

  • I want to see the secret DVD EULA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Monday July 29, 2002 @06:41PM (#3975137) Homepage Journal
    No, I don't mean the contract between DVD player manufacturers and DVDCCA, although that would be interesting as well.

    I mean the license for the DVD consumer. The contract between MPAA and you.

    There must be one. You see, under DMCA, you are violating the law every time you play a CSS-protected DVD, unless you have authorization to bypass the technological device that restricts access. If you have authorization, then bypassing wasn't circumvention. If you don't have authorization, then bypassing was circumvention.

    And there is only one possible way that you can have this authorization: if you got it from them, somehow.

    You either you got permission from them, and playing the DVD is legal, or you didn't, or you're a DMCA criminal.

    Since MPAA attacked DeCSS, we can infer that this authorization is conditional; it doesn't just come with buying the DVD. They don't just say, "Anyone who buys our DVD may watch it." We know it's not that simple. But what the actual conditions are, or any other aspects of this deal is, remain highly mysterious. It might be that people with dark skin are not allowed to watch DVD. Or it may just have descriptions of the type of equipment that you're allowed to play it on, or something like that. Who knows?

    The only way to know, is to see the text of the license that states under what conditions the end user is authorized to bypass the access control.

    Whatever this license is, it's an interesting one, like the GPL, in that it actually grants you a power that you would otherwise not have (permission to watch the DVD, which would otherwise by prohibited by DMCA), in exchange for taking away other rights. Just as you can't redistribute a GPL program (a power you ordinarily wouldn't have) without either violating copyright law or agreeing to the GPL's terms, you can't watch a DVD without either violating the DMCA law or agreeing to the mystery license.

    I think the license must remain secret, because if it were disclosed, it would be blatant evidence of product-tying and trigger Antitrust action. Of course, you shouldn't speak too loudly about the contract possibly having illegal terms in it, because if it's an illegal contract, then it's an invalid contract, and then you don't have authorization to watch DVDs. So if you want to watch the movie, shut your mouth.

    To watch DVDs, we must be resigned to having agreed to a secret contract we'll never get to see the terms of. Does MPAA own your house? Are you sure?

    • Too complicated, try this:

      You do not have the right to do anything to this DVD except to read the back and use the shiny part of the disc as a mirror. If you exceed these rights, then you forfeit the use of the shiny part of the disc as a mirror.
  • I want to know which EULA first said "by using this software you agree to...".

  • Ancient UNIX (Score:3, Informative)

    by SecretAsianMan ( 45389 ) on Tuesday July 30, 2002 @04:34AM (#3976894) Homepage
    Heh. One of the first things printed on the console by many early unices in the PDP-11 era was "RESTRICTED RIGHTS". This goes back a lot further than one thinks.

Slashdot Top Deals

Order and simplification are the first steps toward mastery of a subject -- the actual enemy is the unknown. -- Thomas Mann

Close