4 ms·

But how come it makes sense for online services then? I've seen this in more than one license to date, I'd say it's not that uncommon. From what I can tell, th

But how come it makes sense for online services then? I've seen this in more than one license to date, I'd say it's not that uncommon. From what I can tell, this is a way to deal with the unforseen abuse situations.

SEMW 13y ago
> But how come it makes sense for online services then? Because, as you just said, it's a way to deal with unforseen abuse situations. But that justification only works for online services (or other situations involving shared or limited resources). It doesn't make sense for standalone software. What does 'abuse' even mean in that situation? Is Excel going to complain to its union rep if I make it work 80 hours a week?
- latitude 13y ago
  A software being used to facilitate the spread of malware. Or being used as a part of a scam operation. Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's brand.
  - tzs 13y ago
    Oh my god, no, you do NOT want to go there. Mallory buys your software, and uses it for scams or for spreading malware, and you revoke his license. Manfred also buys your software and it uses it for scams or spreading malware, but for some reason you do NOT revoke his license. Congratulations! Manfred's victims now try to sue YOU for failing to stop Manfred. Will they succeed? I don't know--but it is going to be a royal pain in the ass for you either way.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    So someone doing those things is really going to care that their license was revoked? Also how is it revoked? Can you revoke it for everyone by updating the website or will you contact people in writing individually. Drop the clause or limit it to breach of other clauses. The clause will stop anyone depending on the software wanting to use it and bad actors won't care that they don't have a license.
    - latitude 13y ago
      Alright. Color me convinced. Though limiting it to the breach of other clauses doesn't make much sense under the same argument - those who are breaching hardly give a damn about the license.
      - josephlord 13y ago
        Yeah you would probably have to put some more restrictions in to make it worthwhile but as it is it only scares the honest.
  - SEMW 13y ago
    > Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's brand. "It looks like you're writing a letter. A letter critical of certain of our company's business practices. I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that. Your licence to use this word processor is revoked. For your convenience, I have deleted the letter." Don't go there. (Re the first two reasons: feel free to have a clause forbidding someone from using the software for illegal purposes, if you like. That's relatively unobjectionable). Likely as not, the clause in its original form would be void in my jurisdiction, under UTCCR. But I still probably wouldn't buy software that had that in it's EULA, just on principle.
endianswap 13y ago
Because you might have to discontinue the service for one reason or another. If you sell a standalone, boxed product, why do you need the power to revoke the license?

SEMW 13y ago

> But how come it makes sense for online services then? Because, as you just said, it's a way to deal with unforseen abuse situations. But that justification only works for online services (or other situations involving shared or limited resources). It doesn't make sense for standalone software. What does 'abuse' even mean in that situation? Is Excel going to complain to its union rep if I make it work 80 hours a week?

latitude 13y ago
A software being used to facilitate the spread of malware. Or being used as a part of a scam operation. Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's brand.
- tzs 13y ago
  Oh my god, no, you do NOT want to go there. Mallory buys your software, and uses it for scams or for spreading malware, and you revoke his license. Manfred also buys your software and it uses it for scams or spreading malware, but for some reason you do NOT revoke his license. Congratulations! Manfred's victims now try to sue YOU for failing to stop Manfred. Will they succeed? I don't know--but it is going to be a royal pain in the ass for you either way.
- josephlord 13y ago
  So someone doing those things is really going to care that their license was revoked? Also how is it revoked? Can you revoke it for everyone by updating the website or will you contact people in writing individually. Drop the clause or limit it to breach of other clauses. The clause will stop anyone depending on the software wanting to use it and bad actors won't care that they don't have a license.
  - latitude 13y ago
    Alright. Color me convinced. Though limiting it to the breach of other clauses doesn't make much sense under the same argument - those who are breaching hardly give a damn about the license.
    - josephlord 13y ago
      Yeah you would probably have to put some more restrictions in to make it worthwhile but as it is it only scares the honest.
- SEMW 13y ago
  > Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's brand. "It looks like you're writing a letter. A letter critical of certain of our company's business practices. I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't let you do that. Your licence to use this word processor is revoked. For your convenience, I have deleted the letter." Don't go there. (Re the first two reasons: feel free to have a clause forbidding someone from using the software for illegal purposes, if you like. That's relatively unobjectionable). Likely as not, the clause in its original form would be void in my jurisdiction, under UTCCR. But I still probably wouldn't buy software that had that in it's EULA, just on principle.

endianswap 13y ago

Because you might have to discontinue the service for one reason or another. If you sell a standalone, boxed product, why do you need the power to revoke the license?