4 ms·

My Google-fu produced the following Microsoft ISVLA from 2009 (not VS-related, but this language appears in several of their EULAs from the 2000s): http://www.

My Google-fu produced the following Microsoft ISVLA from 2009 (not VS-related, but this language appears in several of their EULAs from the 2000s): http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/Downloader.aspx?DocumentId=2322&usg=AFQjCNG2sa-QyMP5OMqVAnYfBshhEh4FFg&sig2=K2lXPncsOELGGf8tiLiwMQ http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/Downloader... > Potentially Viral Software. Your license rights under Agreement and/or Academic Agreement are conditioned upon your compliance with the following terms: You must not: (a) Integrate or otherwise incorporate Potentially Viral Software into, or combine Potentially Viral Software with, any Licensed Product, Software Documentation, or derivative work thereof; (b) distribute Potentially Viral Software in conjunction with any Licensed Product, Software Documentation, or derivative work thereof; or (c) use Potentially Viral Software in the development of any derivative work of any Licensed Product or Software Documentation. “Potentially Viral Software” means software which is licensed pursuant to terms that directly or indirectly (i) create, or purport to create, obligations for Microsoft or our suppliers with respect to the Licensed Products; or (ii) grant, or purport to grant, to any third party any rights or immunities under Microsoft’s or our suppliers’ intellectual property or proprietary rights in the Licensed Products. Potentially Viral Software includes, without limitation, any software that requires as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of such software that other software incorporated into, derived from, or distributed with such software be: (a) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (b) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (c) redistributable at no charge. I'm not a lawyer, but this term sounds scarier than I think it is. "Potentially Viral Software" is defined to be software under a license that places obligations on Microsoft (which would be every license offered by Microsoft, and no license not offered by Microsoft, so as its only effect is to prevent you from using Microsoft software, it seems an unintelligible term). It goes on to say this "includes... software that requires... [being] distributed in source code form" but that has nothing to do with "Potentially Viral Software" as defined just before. My gut says Microsoft wrote this term in a manner calculated to confuse drive-by software engineers into believing that VS can't be used to compile GPLed software, that the GPL creates obligations on third parties, or both.

cm3 10y ago
Thanks for digging that up. It reads vaguely familiar. The point of a EULA is for the End User to sign it. If the end user cannot understand it, does this mean they have to ask a lawyer before clicking Next in the installer?
- drewcrawford 10y ago
  I don't understand your question. "The point" of an EULA is subjective, and depends on your legal strategy, and the exact text of the document. It is generally a good idea to ask a lawyer before agreeing to anything you don't understand. I am not aware of any law requiring one to consult a lawyer before clicking next in an installer.
  - cm3 10y ago
    The whole concept of EULAs that cannot be understood by non-lawyers goes against the aim of having them read and accepted by end users before running an application. The problem is that there's no standard text where it'd say you agree to ISO-XYZ and everyone knows it's a respected and well understood agreement that's in use for all kinds applications already.
    - drewcrawford 10y ago
      There certainly are "respected and well-understood" "standard" texts, for example, the Apache or GPL licenses are widely understood and are used for "all kinds of applications already." The legal analyses of these texts runs into the millions of pages; we know quite a lot about them at this point. What I believe you misunderstand is that "the aim" or "the whole concept" of an EULA is not to explain things clearly to end users. On the contrary, "the aim" of an EULA is to offer terms that are favorable to the licensor (and thus unfavorable to the end user), and this aim is best accomplished when the user does not especially comprehend the document. In other words, "the aim" of an EULA is to be obfuscatory. Anyone who wanted to use a standard document has many options to choose from that are probably familiar to you. ISVs who have passed over the ten-or-so standard texts that you are familiar with will not be convinced by an eleventh.

cm3 10y ago

Thanks for digging that up. It reads vaguely familiar. The point of a EULA is for the End User to sign it. If the end user cannot understand it, does this mean they have to ask a lawyer before clicking Next in the installer?

drewcrawford 10y ago
I don't understand your question. "The point" of an EULA is subjective, and depends on your legal strategy, and the exact text of the document. It is generally a good idea to ask a lawyer before agreeing to anything you don't understand. I am not aware of any law requiring one to consult a lawyer before clicking next in an installer.
- cm3 10y ago
  The whole concept of EULAs that cannot be understood by non-lawyers goes against the aim of having them read and accepted by end users before running an application. The problem is that there's no standard text where it'd say you agree to ISO-XYZ and everyone knows it's a respected and well understood agreement that's in use for all kinds applications already.
  - drewcrawford 10y ago
    There certainly are "respected and well-understood" "standard" texts, for example, the Apache or GPL licenses are widely understood and are used for "all kinds of applications already." The legal analyses of these texts runs into the millions of pages; we know quite a lot about them at this point. What I believe you misunderstand is that "the aim" or "the whole concept" of an EULA is not to explain things clearly to end users. On the contrary, "the aim" of an EULA is to offer terms that are favorable to the licensor (and thus unfavorable to the end user), and this aim is best accomplished when the user does not especially comprehend the document. In other words, "the aim" of an EULA is to be obfuscatory. Anyone who wanted to use a standard document has many options to choose from that are probably familiar to you. ISVs who have passed over the ten-or-so standard texts that you are familiar with will not be convinced by an eleventh.