Talk:FEULA
From Gripe Wiki
Please post your suggestions and ideas for improving the FEULA on this page. If you do make changes to the text of the draft, we'd appreciate it if you would post a comment here explaining your rationale so that others can comment. To post a comment, click on "edit" tab above and type in your text in the most appropriate place. Thanks for your participation in the FEULA project and the Gripe Wiki. --Ed Foster 12:00, 25 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Ed, I feel you are definitely on the right track with the FEULA. It would be very nice to be able to get this type of wording from Microsoft, Adobe, Symantec, Intuit, etc. If it is adopted by the Open Source community maybe that day will come.
How do folks feel about the 5a section that someone's added? I like the idea of specifically prohibiting "phoning home" without the user's permission, but I think it would be better if we could integrate it more cleanly with paragraph 5. If anyone would like to take a shot at that, please do. --Ed Foster 10:28, 27 Sep 2005 (PDT)
Contents |
Full Refund
Ed, I think the license agreement is a great start. However, directing buyers who reject the terms of the FEULA to return the software to the place of purchase "for a full refund" is not something I think should be specified in the agreement. This goes against the return policies of most major retailers, including Wal-Mart, and I seriously doubt they will either modify their policies or make exceptions based on the terms of the FEULA. I think this wording will do nothing more than provide false security to the buyer, and it should be changed or removed. - Derek Meyer
- Well, would it be better to say return the software "to the place of purchase or to us" (meaning the software publisher) for a refund? Most of the major software publishers now say they will refund the money of a customer who rejects the EULA and can't get the store to return it. --Ed Foster 10:08, 26 Sep 2005 (PDT)
- Yes, that would be a much better way of phrasing. It would give the consumer a feeling of security to know that the vendor is willing to issue a refund, rather than depending on the whim of the retailer/reseller. - Derek Meyer
- Ideally, the user should be able to read the EULA before purchasing the software. Perhaps the URL could be printed on the outside of the box. - Jeremy Stanley
Limited Warranty
Ed, I think this is a great idea. I've never had a serious problem with a EULA, at least until now, but the possibility is certainly out there. But I believe your approach with the Limited Warranty section is too idealistic. Unless someone prints out the specifications on a publisher's website and stores that information dated at the same time as the purchase of the product, you're going to have disputes over what was said and probably what was implied. It's a corollary to an old joke - if 10 people read something even remotely technical, how many interpretations will you get? Probably 15... or 20...
Perhaps a better approach would be for publishers to be responsible for delineating exactly what they feel are the purposes of the software and how the software will suit those purposes.
The wording on publishers' websites is often murky at best. If the limited warranty idea is going to work, those websites, or at least the language on them, needs to be cleaned up.
Jeff
Allow use on multiple computers
It's not unheard of to grant the user permission to use the software on both their desktop and their laptop. Even Microsoft has a SKU of Office which allows you to install the software on up to three computers.
In the regards, I would suggest allowing for an optional alternate versions of paragraph 1 and 2 that companies could use. Perhaps something along this line:
1 (alternate). We grant you two (2) licenses to install and use this software on multiple computers as long as the software is only utilized by a single individual. This is to allow the user the right to install the software on both their desktop and laptop computers, not to allow multiple people to use a singlie license of the software. If you do not agree to the following terms of this license, please uninstall and remove all copies and return the product to the place that you purchased it from within 30 days of your purchase for a full refund.
2 (alternate). You may install and use the software on additional computers, but the software may not be in use on more than the number of computers specified in Paragraph 1 at a time unless you purchase additional licenses. You may make back-up copies of the software for archival purposes. You may permanently transfer your license to use the software to another party who will be bound by this agreement, provided you do not retain any copies of the software.
Richard
Some other items I would like to see addressed
1. Statement regarding the inclusion or non inclusion of 3rd party programs which will get installed along with....i.e. "This software does not install any 3rd party programs"....or....."This software includes or requires the installation of 3rd party programs listed under "System Requirements" on the outside of the package. No other 3rd party programs will be installed or required by this installation".
2. Statement that the uninstall program does / does not remove all traces of the installation and restores any system files replaced by the installation (including 3rd party programs). Also that manual instructions exist and can be found.
3. Statement as to full disclosure of system changes as the result of installation...not as part of the EULA necessarily but that such information exists and can be found. Information should include system files replaced, where original system files will be backed up to, hard drive space in "home directory", hard drive space on other "common" directories, changes in default Windows settings, etc.
Again, all this does not have to be spelled out **in** the EULA but a statement that the information exists and can be found at what location seems appropriate.
Jack Naylor, P.E.
Comment about listing 3rd party programs
Jack,
I almost kind-of understand what you are proposing in (1) requring listing of 3rd party programs, but not really :-) I imagine you are thinking of programs (like the copy protected version of Turbo Tax, or spyware with Gator) that install a subpackage the end-user might not like. Or perhaps you want to know that the application requires a subsystem (like IE, the JVM or a Phython interepter)? But your wording (and meaning) is not specific enough.
"Installed" is a tricky word, does just including a DLL in my installation routine mean I've installed it, or perahps if I use a sub-installation routine (and does it matter if it is visible)? What makes it important enough to include in a EULA? Why does the user care, for example why do they need to know if I used InstallShield or the Microsoft Studio utility to make the installer? This wording implys that I need to tell you all the 3rd party libraries I used (did I use OpenSSL or BSAFE), and a paranoid reading even would include the compiler and perhaps some of the pre-processors. I don't think this is what you are trying to accomplish.
In an ideal world, the end-user should not care about third party software. The software provider assumes liability or support for the subsystems used by their application in the context of running that application. Now in the messy world that is not true, and I can see points (2) and (3) are from that context. Please be more specific about what you want in point (1).
Michael McKay
Governing Law
It is not ideal to refer to the state in which the softwae licensor is headquartered, because the licensee has no idea where that is. It would be better to refer to one state's law. In any case, the licensor may not be headquartered in the US. This may be because it is a foreign company (like SAP) or because it has its headquarters in the Bermudas for tax reasons. In such cases, rather than have the poor consumer try to figure out the corporate structure, it is better to have certainty and to refer to a neutral law. I have used English law because many European companies are bound by European Union laws and these are all reflected in English law, many Asian and Indian companies already use English law because they used to be English colonies, and English law is, well, in English.
Clearing Up Confusion Over What's Sold
There's sometimes quite a bit of confusion in consumers' minds over the issue of exactly what they're buying.
One common work-around is to point out that the publisher is only selling a license to use the software, and is deliberately *not* selling the software itself. And that there are many kinds of license available for purchase, including the common license included here for one person to blah, blah, blah.
Walter Dufresne, USA
Installing on Multiple Computers
Paragraph 2 as it stand now allows a company to buy one license and install it on any number of employees machines as long as they do not use it at them same time. It also seems to allow them to buy only as many licenses as they plan to have simultaneous users, no matter how many total users they have or how many machines they install it on.
There are many kinds of software product that by their nature would not be in use a large percentage of the time, for example a disk defragmenter, a backup utility, reporting tool, or any product that users may need for only a portion of their job. Even if they use it half the time companies could buy half as many licenses.
I don’t think many software vendors would be able to allow this kind of use and it doesn’t seem fair to me. I can see that one worker should be able to use it on their work or home computer or that multiple workers should be able to share it on the same machine, but I can’t see how to say this and prevent the above problems while keeping the section short and easy to understand.
David Hore
