5 ms·

A EULA is a legally binding contract. Saying you don't care about what a contract says is wrong. If every single person who violated the agreement was sued for

by Flankk 5y ago

A EULA is a legally binding contract. Saying you don't care about what a contract says is wrong. If every single person who violated the agreement was sued for $100k, you would care a lot. You only don't care because of lack of enforcement. You don't purchase software. You purchase a license to use software. The company provides a copy of the software, and the company owns the software. If you don't like that you don't own the software or the source code, then go use open-source software that doesn't have a budget in the tens of millions.

rasz 5y ago
>EULA is a legally binding contract. In US maybe, not in EU.
cable2600 5y ago
Here are some open sourced video games: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/open-source-video-games/ https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/open-source-video-games/
EMIRELADERO 5y ago
Let me propose this scenario and ask you a question: I purchase a copy of some paid proprietary software on a website. The website requires no registration and only provides an embedded PayPal payment link. After the payment, a copy of the software is delivered to my PayPal email at 10:00 PM. Inmediately after that, I get up from my desk chair and go for a walk, maybe do some grocery shopping. All around it took 30 minutes. It's now 10:30 PM. Back at my desk and computer, I launch the installer and accept the EULA. Between 10:00 PM and 10:30 PM, in those 30 minutes, what did I own?
- nixgeek 5y ago
  A license to use said software subject to agreeing to the End User License Agreement. You were free to ask the entity selling these licenses to allow you to inspect the EULA at any point prior to exchange of funds, this is in fact how almost every corporation will go about procurement.
  - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
    I would argue that any EULA that was "agreed to" after the sale is unconscionable at best. According to the first sale doctrine, I should not need any license to use software I acquired legally. Copyright law doesn't say anything about licenses. The normal operation would be for the software seller to give me a copy after the transaction. That copy would inly be subject to normal copyright law and the DMCA. How can any contract made after the transaction be enforceable if we consider the unconsciability argument? This would be the same as if I bought a book which was then delivered to me on a sealed envelope with an attached contract stating "OPENING THIS ENVELOPE MEANS YOU AGREE TO THE END READER LICENSE AGREEMENT".
    - nixgeek 5y ago
      Most jurisdictions view EULA as being perfectly legal, so while you might not like them, they’re here and they’re binding on your usage of the software. Also, you’re certainly entitled to ask a software supplier to show you the EULA before you exchange funds and to refuse to purchase if they won’t share the terms, that’s really how all businesses buy software or engage in services contracts for things like AWS. You could also ASK for a refund if you receive software with a EULA you find unacceptable (whether the refund is granted is another question …) since I don’t think you have the automatic right to one in most countries.
      - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
        First of all, many jurisdictions and courts have ruled EULAs as unenforceable precisely because of what I said on my previous reply. To follow up, let me ask you, why should the software maker even have the right to govern how I make use of the copies on my own machine? Terms of Service are a more fair thing since I am on someone else's back yard. I'm using other person's server and therefore I should be expected to abide by whatever rules they impose on my use. However, with software that runs locally, why should there even be a license agreement? The first sale doctrine exists, copyright law exists and the DMCA exists. Those govern the copying and redistribution of material after the sale. Why should the average customer be expected to abide by additional terms? Even moreso, why should they expect to keep a contractual relationship with the copyright owner at all? If I buy a book, I have my copy and I can do whatever I want with it besides copying/redistributing copies. No relationship with the seller or author exists after the transaction is finished. If I do all the heavy-lifting of using my computing power to execute the program and my own storage space and RAM to store it, why should I be obligated to abide by a contract to which I was obligated to agree to in order to use the copy of software I already own?
- balls187 5y ago
  > Between 10:00 PM and 10:30 PM, in those 30 minutes, what did I own? Interesting question. I would argue, you owned the installer binary.

by Flankk 5y ago

rasz 5y ago

>EULA is a legally binding contract. In US maybe, not in EU.

cable2600 5y ago

Here are some open sourced video games: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/open-source-video-games/ https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/open-source-video-games/

EMIRELADERO 5y ago

Let me propose this scenario and ask you a question: I purchase a copy of some paid proprietary software on a website. The website requires no registration and only provides an embedded PayPal payment link. After the payment, a copy of the software is delivered to my PayPal email at 10:00 PM. Inmediately after that, I get up from my desk chair and go for a walk, maybe do some grocery shopping. All around it took 30 minutes. It's now 10:30 PM. Back at my desk and computer, I launch the installer and accept the EULA. Between 10:00 PM and 10:30 PM, in those 30 minutes, what did I own?

nixgeek 5y ago
A license to use said software subject to agreeing to the End User License Agreement. You were free to ask the entity selling these licenses to allow you to inspect the EULA at any point prior to exchange of funds, this is in fact how almost every corporation will go about procurement.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  I would argue that any EULA that was "agreed to" after the sale is unconscionable at best. According to the first sale doctrine, I should not need any license to use software I acquired legally. Copyright law doesn't say anything about licenses. The normal operation would be for the software seller to give me a copy after the transaction. That copy would inly be subject to normal copyright law and the DMCA. How can any contract made after the transaction be enforceable if we consider the unconsciability argument? This would be the same as if I bought a book which was then delivered to me on a sealed envelope with an attached contract stating "OPENING THIS ENVELOPE MEANS YOU AGREE TO THE END READER LICENSE AGREEMENT".
  - nixgeek 5y ago
    Most jurisdictions view EULA as being perfectly legal, so while you might not like them, they’re here and they’re binding on your usage of the software. Also, you’re certainly entitled to ask a software supplier to show you the EULA before you exchange funds and to refuse to purchase if they won’t share the terms, that’s really how all businesses buy software or engage in services contracts for things like AWS. You could also ASK for a refund if you receive software with a EULA you find unacceptable (whether the refund is granted is another question …) since I don’t think you have the automatic right to one in most countries.
    - EMIRELADERO 5y ago
      First of all, many jurisdictions and courts have ruled EULAs as unenforceable precisely because of what I said on my previous reply. To follow up, let me ask you, why should the software maker even have the right to govern how I make use of the copies on my own machine? Terms of Service are a more fair thing since I am on someone else's back yard. I'm using other person's server and therefore I should be expected to abide by whatever rules they impose on my use. However, with software that runs locally, why should there even be a license agreement? The first sale doctrine exists, copyright law exists and the DMCA exists. Those govern the copying and redistribution of material after the sale. Why should the average customer be expected to abide by additional terms? Even moreso, why should they expect to keep a contractual relationship with the copyright owner at all? If I buy a book, I have my copy and I can do whatever I want with it besides copying/redistributing copies. No relationship with the seller or author exists after the transaction is finished. If I do all the heavy-lifting of using my computing power to execute the program and my own storage space and RAM to store it, why should I be obligated to abide by a contract to which I was obligated to agree to in order to use the copy of software I already own?
balls187 5y ago
> Between 10:00 PM and 10:30 PM, in those 30 minutes, what did I own? Interesting question. I would argue, you owned the installer binary.