7 ms·
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... " Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has
by Y_Y 3y ago
> "By installing, copying or otherwise using ... you agree to be bound by ... "
Why do people keep writing shit like this. Whoever wrote that EULA no doubt has an understanding of contract law and knows that you can't just unilaterally bind someone into an agreement like that. I know it's classic EULA nonsense, but it still bugs me how you can just write whatever and hope people naively take your word on it.
- delusional 3y agoIt should be disbarrable to knowingly write unenforceable EULA's.
- meghan_rain 3y agoThe you will surely agree to be permanently barred from looking at, commenting, writing or otherwise contributing to code if you write a bug I deem severe enough?
- v3d2 3y agoI wasn't aware you needed a license to code.
- kaliqt 3y agoWith the way peasa- I mean citizens talk these days, they'd say breathing should require a license.
- beepbooptheory 3y agoIs this like a feudalism joke? I don't get it.
- dooglius 3y agoSeems reasonable to bar someone from contributing code to a project who _knowingly_ contributes severely buggy code
- DannyBee 3y agoThis one is likely enforceable.
- imtringued 3y agoThere is a difference between individual clauses being invalidated and the whole contract being invalidated.
- Zephyo_ 3y agoI am very uneducated on this subject, what exactly is the problem with that sentence?
- gmerc 3y agoWhat OP says, it’s not enforceable. that’s not how contracts work despite longstanding attempts to make people believe so
- DannyBee 3y agoOP is wrong. This would be a enforceable in the US, despite lots of HN not wanting it to be, and badly playing lawyer. Unilateral form contracts are enforced all the time.
- alphager 3y agoA contract requires mutual assent. Hiding an EULA.txt file somewhere does not fulfill the assent requirement. You are already copying nextcloud when you download it; you can't be bound to arbitrary demands you never heard of for that.
- DannyBee 3y agoUnilateral form contracts are a thing. Clickwrap is generally enforceable. Browserwrap generally is not.
- t0mas88 3y agoApparently the code is Apache licensed, so you can use that code. Putting a file somewhere that states "you agree to X by using the software" without you signing anything isn't an enforceable contract. If they want you to agree to something it needs to be (e-)signed. Not just stating an action and claiming that by doing that you agree to a contract.
- DannyBee 3y agoActually, this is totally wrong, at least in the US. They can't bind you for doing nothing (opening a package for example). They can bind you if you get the benefit of the bargain, which you would by using the software.
- matheusmoreira 3y agoCould have been worse. It could have been "by reading this license, you agree to its terms" which is essentially what website EULAs do.
- deng 3y agoUnfortunately, it is not that easy. First off, "contract law", apart from being incredibly complex, is also different depending on where you are located. Even within the US, we have seen different rulings on whether EULAs are enforceable or not. It often depends on how these EULAs are presented to the user and how exactly they are worded. Here in Germany, I'm pretty sure that the above would not be enforceable, but the real reason these EULAs are written is usually not that they hold up in court. From my experience, having an EULA like this will make pretty sure that no company with a legal department will touch this thing with a 10foot pole, so in effect, EULAs actually do work (unfortunately).
- Semaphor 3y ago> Here in Germany I agree, because of AGB-law, though that depends on some stuff, the usual EULA-void rules were because you had to buy the software before agreeing to the EULA instead of the other way around. Not sure what would happen here. But IIRC that is generally not relevant for contracts between companies, only between consumers and companies. Not quite sure about that part, though.
- imtringued 3y agohttps://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__310.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__310.html >(1) § 305 Absatz 2 und 3, § 308 Nummer 1, 2 bis 9 und § 309 finden keine Anwendung auf Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen, die gegenüber einem Unternehmer, einer juristischen Person des öffentlichen Rechts oder einem öffentlich-rechtlichen Sondervermögen verwendet werden. § 308 and § 309 are "catalogues" of various conditions that nullify an AGB clause. Also, contract clauses in individual contracts can still be considered as part of the AGB even if the company gives you a separate AGB document.
- jxdxbx 3y agoA “license” is legal permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal, such as copy software (assuming there’s no fair use etc), or even attend a concert. Licenses are often granted as part of contracts, but need not be. Unilateral license conditions are not binding contacts, but not following them can still be unlawful. If a movie theater breaks a license term by for example playing a movie publicly without authorization, it violates copyright, not contact law. Probably both in real life.
- chaosite 3y agoUnless that movie theater entered into a contract with a distributor, right?
- jxdxbx 3y agoIn real situations yes. But in the software world “license” and “contract” are often used interchangeably, contracts that grant license will be called “licenses,” etc. So it leads to confusion.
- paulnpace 3y agoThis is a license agreement, so who are the parties coming to agreement?
- eli 3y agoIf you're not a party to the agreement then isn't possessing the software a copyright violation?
- josephcsible 3y agoIf I buy a used computer, do I have to agree to the terms of every publisher with software on it to not break copyright law?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
- tssva 3y agoThe blanket statement that EULAs are unenforceable is not accurate. EULAs are enforceable in some jurisdictions. They are where I live.
- tptacek 3y agoA lawyer downthread says you're wrong about this. Are you also a lawyer? Or are they wrong?