4 ms·
It's still long enough that it needs a table of contents with links, as well as long enough that the only people reading it are people looking for legal recours
by s_henry_paulson 14y ago
It's still long enough that it needs a table of contents with links, as well as long enough that the only people reading it are people looking for legal recourse.
- nolok 14y agoI'm not sure why you expected any different, better formatting doesn't make a boring content any less boring; if you don't enjoy legalese pretty colors and bold sections aren't going to change that. Still, a lot better than a lot of other TOS out there that you can't properly read even if you want to because ALL CAPS EVERYWHERE.
- pydave 14y agoThey could have gone with the CC approach: For humans: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ For lawyers: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode Granted, Microsoft's lawyers probably wouldn't approve (because people might argue that they're agreeing to the simplified terms that have wriggle room and not the iron-clad legalese).
- tedunangst 14y agoI think that works for CC because the people using the license are using the license and not the summary. It's ok if a third party to the licensor provides a summary.
- htp 14y agoYes, but instead of being a giant, monolithic wall of pain, it's now broken down into much less daunting chunks of text. I caught myself actively reading the agreement like it was a blog post. The questions helped frame what I was about to read, and made the answers feel a lot more accessible. (It also helps that the answers seem like they were written for normal people to understand. They're a little wordy, but in a thorough-yet-not-quite-legalese-y kind of way.)