End User License Agreement

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Everyone I know of clicks on the "I accept" area of any software end user license agreement, but even if you agree, I don't think that you are really involved in a binding contract.

I don't see how a company that intentionally obfuscates an agreement could justifiably hold you to that same agreement if there was no expectation that you had read it in the first place, and furthermore, when certain pieces of hardware are designed without the ability to opt out of agreement of software end user license agreements, then since there is no reasonable way to opt out, then there is no actual agreement between the manufacturer and you.

What are your thoughts on this and other cases of contractual agreement?

[Bill Brasky]

Everyone I know of clicks on the "I accept" area of any software end user license agreement, but even if you agree, I don't think that you are really involved in a binding contract.

I don't see how a company that intentionally obfuscates an agreement could justifiably hold you to that same agreement if there was no expectation that you had read it in the first place, and furthermore, when certain pieces of hardware are designed without the ability to opt out of agreement of software end user license agreements, then since there is no reasonable way to opt out, then there is no actual agreement between the manufacturer and you.

Those things are mostly to remove them from liability if you incur financial damage by using their product.  

Theres other crap in the boilerplate about unauthorized reproductions, which they could come after you for.  Chances of that are almost zero, unless you're a Pirate Bay kinda guy, and they really want to grind you into powder.  

But mostly, you can't hold them responsible if the shit crashes and you lose money because of it.  Thats the terms you're accepting.  Beacuse if you do have Important Shit on your business machines, you have to insure them and buy maintenance contracts, have redundant systems and back-ups.  

The first level of shit you'll have to pay for, is usually the first level of shit a company will want to get out of paying for.  Clicking [I ACCEPT] absolves them of that responsibility.  So, it is  a contract, its just kinda backwards of the way you're thinking.  

[AL the Inconspicuous]

I agreed to WHAAA?!   

A contract is invalid unless there's proof that all parties signed that contract consciously.  That "by using this you agree to that" insanity is pure bullshit!  You can't prove who / what clicked that "I AGREE" button and in what circumstances - an install program can easily be patched / automated to alter or remove that screen altogether!

[BobRobertson]

I run Linux, there is no EULA that I have to agree to.

It's on the various web pages, in the documentation and such, but at least they don't NAG me about it.

That may very well be what drove me away from commercial software, I just loath being nagged.

[blackie]

I do automated installs most of the time, so I don't see that stuff, even on Windows.

[AL the Inconspicuous]

(In what must be a good candidate for the Ironic Happening Of The Year award, I experienced a massive Firefox crash while writing this reply - and guess what OS I was running?  That's right, Ubuntu Linux!  It still crashes whenever I visit a certain anti-GNU site I wanted to paste something from...  It also failed to recover my session / this textarea buffer, so I have to retype my rant from memory, which now I probably won't...  I'll only spend a few more hours torturing myself with Linux desktop, and then uninstall X and turn this into a mysql server, which I need for work.  I don't recall having Firefox crash and burn like that under Windows - ever!)

I run Linux, there is no EULA that I have to agree to.

Your ignorance is mind-boggling.  Clearly you've never earned a penny as a developer in your life.  Linux has one of the most tyrannical license agreements ever invented - the Gee Pee Ell!

[mikehz]

I sign only if it's a widely known and used service with a good reputation. Otherwise, I read the fine print. All of it. And, if I don't understand something, I don't take the risk.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

(In what must be a good candidate for the Ironic Happening Of The Year award, I experienced a massive Firefox crash while writing this reply - and guess what OS I was running?  That's right, Ubuntu Linux!  It still crashes whenever I visit a certain anti-GNU site I wanted to paste something from...  It also failed to recover my session / this textarea buffer, so I have to retype my rant from memory, which now I probably won't...  I'll only spend a few more hours torturing myself with Linux desktop, and then uninstall X and turn this into a mysql server, which I need for work.  I don't recall having Firefox crash and burn like that under Windows - ever!)

I run Linux, there is no EULA that I have to agree to.

Your ignorance is mind-boggling.  Clearly you've never earned a penny as a developer in your life.  Linux has one of the most tyrannical license agreements ever invented - the Gee Pee Ell!

Firefox sucks.  Opera FTW.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I sign only if it's a widely known and used service with a good reputation. Otherwise, I read the fine print. All of it. And, if I don't understand something, I don't take the risk.

If you don't understand your end of a contract, could you be held to it?

[AL the Inconspicuous]

Firefox sucks.  Opera FTW.

Yeah, I'm just way too addicted to several Firefox-only add-ons right now.

I'll try to quit Firefox again when Chrome matures on all OS'es.

[BobRobertson]

Your ignorance is mind-boggling.

Not at all.

Please show me, in your vast self-stated knowledge, where I must agree to anything what so ever in order to use Linux or any other F/OSS on Linux. (since I think FireFox does provide the GPL at install time on Windows as a click-through)

There is none. Nada. Nicht. Zilch. Zero.

No click-throughs, no nags. Just a notice in the documentation: This software provided without warrantee of any kind, explicit or implied. Stallman's "Freedom 0" in fact. As you've styled yourself a widely experienced developer, I'm surprised you didn't know that.

Clearly you've never earned a penny as a developer in your life.

Unlike you, I have never claimed to be a developer. I don't make vast claims of expertise where I am not an expert.

Linux has one of the most tyrannical license agreements ever invented - the Gee Pee Ell!

Just digging yourself into a deeper hole.

The GPL is not an end-user licence agreement. Didn't you read the thread subject? You go on and on in other threads about how the subject is something this or something that, objecting to other people's variations and drift. But apparently you can't read the subject here.

The GPL covers re-use of the source code. You should read it some time, then you'd know that.

[BobRobertson]

If you don't understand your end of a contract, could you be held to it?

If I remember correctly, that's why so-called "shrink wrap" agreements were tossed out. Get it home, open the box, and only _then_ find out what the "license" is? Doesn't work for me either.

Unfortunately, we're still in a legal "system" in which ignorance of the law is no defense. So if you have to click "agree" to a license which has restrictive terms, it's assumed legally that you did agree to it.

Sort of a legal "caveat emptor", clicker beware.

Oh, and I just remembered that some F/OSS does provide the GPL when installing on Windows, with an "I agree" button. So I'll have to amend my take-down of A.L. above.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

If you don't understand your end of a contract, could you be held to it?

If I remember correctly, that's why so-called "shrink wrap" agreements were tossed out. Get it home, open the box, and only _then_ find out what the "license" is? Doesn't work for me either.

Unfortunately, we're still in a legal "system" in which ignorance of the law is no defense. So if you have to click "agree" to a license which has restrictive terms, it's assumed legally that you did agree to it.

Sort of a legal "caveat emptor", clicker beware.

Oh, and I just remembered that some F/OSS does provide the GPL when installing on Windows, with an "I agree" button. So I'll have to amend my take-down of A.L. above.

I think that this should apply to basically any legal contract where one party intentionally makes a contract so difficult to understand then tries to wrangle a legal settlement out of it that they like. It shouldn't happen.

One time, a person I knew had payed for insurance but couldn't get coverage for something they payed for because of a technicality in the contract. I argued that the insurance company engaged in fraud by not intending to cover.

[mikehz]

I sign only if it's a widely known and used service with a good reputation. Otherwise, I read the fine print. All of it. And, if I don't understand something, I don't take the risk.

If you don't understand your end of a contract, could you be held to it?

If you don't understand it, then why would you sign that you DO understand it?
 

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I sign only if it's a widely known and used service with a good reputation. Otherwise, I read the fine print. All of it. And, if I don't understand something, I don't take the risk.

If you don't understand your end of a contract, could you be held to it?

If you don't understand it, then why would you sign that you DO understand it?
 

We are not interested in practicality here. This is about theory.

The peson signed the contract because they would be entitled to something from it that they wanted.