Comments on: How does your EULA suck?

by: Ian S

Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:57:42 +0000

I think the article brings up good points. As a microisv it is certainly in your interests to protect yourself from expensive litigation, but some of these clauses are just outright bad for business. Don’t benchmark your product? Says who? I might be charged for renewed subscription even if I cancel? Etc..

These type of ridiculous clauses must not be ignored, they make all EULAs, which may have good purposes, look bad. If the word gets out to the general public that EULAs are a bad thing(tm), such as how they’ve been addressed by the OSS community, then we’re all going to suffer in consumer confidence, which IMO is at an all time low when it comes to software.

by: Brian

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:59:41 +0000

matt,
You may be right, and I didn’t post it looking for support, but its something that should be considered by every software publisher shouldn’t it?

My feeling is that you’ll still get sued, in the US at least, if your software causes a business significant damage even if you have it in your EULA absolving you of responsibility. If you win the case you won’t have to pay damages, but your microISV business may not survive.

by: matt

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:29:30 +0000

I’m not sure that you will get much support for articles like that out here. MicroISV’s have the most to lose from EULA legislation.

This article is the very definition of “FUD”.

by: ianmjones.net

Wed, 23 Feb 2005 12:40:11 +0000

Dangerous Terms: A User’s Guide to EULAs
microISV.com has pointed out indirectly that Annalee Newitz has written a very interesting white paper as a “A User’s Guide to EULAs”, with Donna Wentworth commenting on some excerpts. If you have ever scanned through a End User License Agreement (w…