Comments on: Eschew obfuscation!

By: it.gen.nz » Wacky email disclaimer

it.gen.nz » Wacky email disclaimer — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:14:49 +0000

[...] ranted before about the futility and stupidity of email disclaimers that so many people and companies use. [...]

By: colin

colin — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:54:56 +0000

Geepy – sure, the GPL is a licence. But it’s the same for everyone (OK, there are three versions) and so it’s well understood. And it’s a lot shorter than most commercial EULAs.

You get no warranties under the GPL. However, as a consumer, have you ever succeeded in collecting on a warranty on software? The best you are likely to get is return of the purchase price, which for most GPL software is zero.

And, yes, if you want to modify software and distribute your modifications, you need to understand the implications of the GPL. Lots of developers are happy to do so, but some folks aren’t and use only BSD-style licensed code or negotiate a commercial licence with someone. None of this matters to you if you just want to use the software and have no intention of changing it and passing on your changes.

By: Geepy Al

Geepy Al — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:28:15 +0000

Hi Colin, you said “it’s completely safe to use GPL software” but that’s not true at all. GPL is a license just the same as those EULAS you mentioned.

I find it one of the longest and most confusing licenses, and it’s made even longer by the philosophical ramblings and FAQs.

You get no warranties under GPL. You have no protection if the software was copied from someone else. It has loads of disclaimers and restrictions just like those EULAS you mentioned.

And if you make modifications, you can devalue your patents and lose the ability to sell your software. That makes it very a dangerous trap for commercial software developers who don’t understand it.

By: Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Lawrence D'Oliveiro — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 22:04:34 +0000

Have you heard about Microsoft being hoist by the terms of its own EULA?

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/31/microsoft_india_tax_ruling/

Apparently it’s been pulling the usual sort of multinational fiddle to avoid paying any taxes in India. Except the Tax Commissioner has ruled that, because by Microsoft’s own terms the software is “licensed, not sold”, that means the income must be treated as royalty payments.

By: Tim McKenzie

Tim McKenzie — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:43:54 +0000

Recently, I had the “pleasure” of reading Trade Me’s terms and conditions. It appears to prohibit Trade Me’s users from having birthday parties or using email to keep in contact with their friends. I pointed this out to Trade Me, saying (in full):
“I have just read your Terms and Conditions. Clause 3.4 (b) appears to prohibit TradeMe members from disclosing their email address and their date of birth to their friends. Is this correct?”
The relevant part of their response was:
“Yes that is correct.”

In the end, I sold the car on the Trade & Exchange website instead—in under 24 hours!

By: Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Lawrence D'Oliveiro — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:08:15 +0000

Hey, your server’s daylight-saving setting seems to be off. It records my previous comment as having being posted at “11:07 am”, whereas the time was in fact 12:08.

By: Lawrence D'Oliveiro

Lawrence D'Oliveiro — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 23:07:03 +0000

Techdirt has a mention of Apple’s EULA stuffup here

http://techdirt.com/articles/20080327/142910668.shtml

There’s also a discussion in the comments about the difference between a “licence” and a “contract”, and why software released under the GPL doesn’t require you to click an “I agree to these conditions” button before being able to make use of it.