EULA Question

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. If clicking on the “Accept†button when an EULA is presented on your screen
    is supposed to be legally binding, then what about other users of your
    machine who use that same software, but never saw the EULA or clicked that
    button? If the EULA is supposed to apply equally to them as well, then
    clicking the button must mean nothing.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In message <>, Allistar wrote:

    > I would expect the EULA to mention something like "you need to assure that
    > all users of this software are familiar with the terms" or something like
    > that.


    I’m not aware of any that do.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, Allistar <> wrote:
    >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> If clicking on the “Accept†button when an EULA is presented on your
    >> screen is supposed to be legally binding, then what about other users of
    >> your machine who use that same software, but never saw the EULA or clicked
    >> that button? If the EULA is supposed to apply equally to them as well,
    >> then clicking the button must mean nothing.

    >
    >I would expect the EULA to mention something like "you need to assure that
    >all users of this software are familiar with the terms" or something like
    >that.
    >
    >What if you get someone else, such a child, to click the "accept" button for
    >you? Are you still bound by the agreement?


    Depends who is asking ? :) :)
    I'm sure MS will have a very clear view. :)
    Bruce Sinclair, Aug 5, 2010
    #3
  4. In message <i3dgcd$dmr$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:

    > I'm sure MS will have a very clear view. :)


    What would that view be:

    1) That the EULA applies to all users of the software, regardless of whether
    they clicked that button or not. In which the clicking of the button is
    meaningless.
    2) The clicking of the “Agree†button IS meaningful. But that means that
    those who didn’t click it aren’t bound by the EULA.

    Which?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 5, 2010
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-08-05, impossible <> wrote:
    > "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> If clicking on the ?Accept? button when an EULA is presented on your
    >>> screen is supposed to be legally binding, then what about other users of
    >>> your machine who use that same software, but never saw the EULA or
    >>> clicked
    >>> that button? If the EULA is supposed to apply equally to them as well,
    >>> then clicking the button must mean nothing.

    >>
    >> I would expect the EULA to mention something like "you need to assure that
    >> all users of this software are familiar with the terms" or something like
    >> that.
    >>

    >
    > The idea that clicking an "accept" button on a EULA carries any particular
    > legal weight is a Larry D'Loserite myth. Because software is licensed to
    > users, not sold, all property rights are retained by the copyright
    > holder(s) -- this is true whether or not someone acknowledges acceptance of
    > a license's terms and conditions or not, and it is as true of software
    > licensed under the GPL as it is of software licensed under a EULA. Clicking
    > an "accept" button then is simply a mechanism devised by copyright holders
    > to (a) draw attention to their intellectual property rights, (b) ensure that
    > users are well-informed of their legal responsibilities to abide by the
    > licensing terms , and, optionally, (c) block a would-user who does not
    > accept the terms and conditions of use from installing the software.


    impossible, are you okay? Or has someone else posted?

    For this posting is right out, away from, your character.
    Gordon, Aug 5, 2010
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gordon Guest

    On 2010-08-05, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <>, Allistar wrote:
    >
    >> I would expect the EULA to mention something like "you need to assure that
    >> all users of this software are familiar with the terms" or something like
    >> that.

    >
    > I?m not aware of any that do.
    >

    I think the point of the click, apart from impossibles's list is that
    legally, someone has clicked, and thus agreed to the terms and conditions.

    I have also been presented with an "accept" button when insatlling GPL
    software.

    Fedora says Read and click understand to procced.
    Gordon, Aug 5, 2010
    #6
  7. In message <>, Gordon wrote:

    > I have also been presented with an "accept" button when insatlling GPL
    > software.


    That’s not usual.

    > Fedora says Read and click understand to procced.


    Generally distributors get told not to do that.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 5, 2010
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 5/08/2010 5:46 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<i3dgcd$dmr$-september.org>, Bruce Sinclair wrote:
    >
    >> I'm sure MS will have a very clear view. :)

    >
    > What would that view be:
    >
    > 1) That the EULA applies to all users of the software, regardless of whether
    > they clicked that button or not. In which the clicking of the button is
    > meaningless.
    > 2) The clicking of the “Agree†button IS meaningful. But that means that
    > those who didn’t click it aren’t bound by the EULA.
    >
    > Which?



    By agreeing you may consent to the application sending information about
    your computer for validation.
    It also may mean that the warranty such as it is is redeemable by the
    registered licensee who accepts the agreement.
    Many of the restrictions apply anyway by virtue of default copyright
    law, but some permissions may be granted back to the registered licensee
    by accepting the conditions of the agreement. This could include the
    right to support, the right to transfer the license to a third party,
    the right to transfer the software to another device, to upgrade etc
    etc. That's all conditional on the licensee's acceptance.
    victor, Aug 5, 2010
    #8
  9. In message <i3dtr6$qha$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > ... some permissions may be granted back to the registered licensee
    > by accepting the conditions of the agreement.


    As far as I’m aware, things like BSA audits do not check who clicked the
    “Agree†button, they only look at the purchaser name on the invoice.

    > This could include ... the right to transfer the license to a third party,
    > the right to transfer the software to another device, to upgrade etc
    > etc. That's all conditional on the licensee's acceptance.


    Seems like such things are conditional on whether the vendor allows them or
    not. For example, Microsoft not offering “upgrade†pricing on Office 2010,
    regardless of whether you accepted the licence for a previous version or
    not. And as previously discussed, some vendors may not allow transferring a
    licence to a third party at all.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 6, 2010
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 6/08/2010 12:36 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<i3dtr6$qha$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> ... some permissions may be granted back to the registered licensee
    >> by accepting the conditions of the agreement.

    >
    > As far as I’m aware, things like BSA audits do not check who clicked the
    > “Agree†button, they only look at the purchaser name on the invoice.
    >
    >> This could include ... the right to transfer the license to a third party,
    >> the right to transfer the software to another device, to upgrade etc
    >> etc. That's all conditional on the licensee's acceptance.

    >
    > Seems like such things are conditional on whether the vendor allows them or
    > not. For example, Microsoft not offering “upgrade†pricing on Office 2010,
    > regardless of whether you accepted the licence for a previous version or
    > not. And as previously discussed, some vendors may not allow transferring a
    > licence to a third party at all.


    Sorry I have no experience of BSA audits, I assume that anyone subject
    to that would have something like a Select volume licensing agreement
    and be installing a corporate image for their users so clicking any EULA
    would certainly be irrelevant.
    I mentions transfer of license after looking at a Microsoft EULA, for
    Win 7, it didn't seem particularly onerous and did grant permissions
    which otherwise might be a matter of dispute under default copyright.
    There are a variety of different conditions in different agreements as
    you have managed to discern, so giving the user the option to explicitly
    agree is only fair.
    victor, Aug 6, 2010
    #10
  11. In message <i3g28f$9fk$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > I mentions transfer of license after looking at a Microsoft EULA, for
    > Win 7, it didn't seem particularly onerous and did grant permissions
    > which otherwise might be a matter of dispute under default copyright.


    Which version of Windows Seven—OEM or retail? The OEM licence doesn’t allow
    transferring between machines. It also doesn’t allow you to do the
    installation for your own use.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 6, 2010
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 6/08/2010 5:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<i3g28f$9fk$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> I mentions transfer of license after looking at a Microsoft EULA, for
    >> Win 7, it didn't seem particularly onerous and did grant permissions
    >> which otherwise might be a matter of dispute under default copyright.

    >
    > Which version of Windows Seven—OEM or retail? The OEM licence doesn’t allow
    > transferring between machines. It also doesn’t allow you to do the
    > installation for your own use.


    I looked at the one that said you could.
    So the fact that there are variations means having knowledge of the
    conditions that you agree to even more useful.
    victor, Aug 6, 2010
    #12
  13. In message <i3gc29$qru$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > On 6/08/2010 5:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    >> In message<i3g28f$9fk$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >>
    >>> I mentions transfer of license after looking at a Microsoft EULA, for
    >>> Win 7, it didn't seem particularly onerous and did grant permissions
    >>> which otherwise might be a matter of dispute under default copyright.

    >>
    >> Which version of Windows Seven—OEM or retail? The OEM licence doesn’t
    >> allow transferring between machines. It also doesn’t allow you to do the
    >> installation for your own use.

    >
    > I looked at the one that said you could.


    Must be the pricier full-retail version, then.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 6, 2010
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    victor Guest

    On 6/08/2010 7:33 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > In message<i3gc29$qru$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >
    >> On 6/08/2010 5:57 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>
    >>> In message<i3g28f$9fk$-september.org>, victor wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I mentions transfer of license after looking at a Microsoft EULA, for
    >>>> Win 7, it didn't seem particularly onerous and did grant permissions
    >>>> which otherwise might be a matter of dispute under default copyright.
    >>>
    >>> Which version of Windows Seven—OEM or retail? The OEM licence doesn’t
    >>> allow transferring between machines. It also doesn’t allow you to do the
    >>> installation for your own use.

    >>
    >> I looked at the one that said you could.

    >
    > Must be the pricier full-retail version, then.


    Whatever.
    There is an I Agree button either way as a personalization step for end
    users.
    One of the purposes might be just as a ritual declaration so you can be
    a special part of the tribe.
    The diehard commie freetards miss out on this special righteousness.
    victor, Aug 7, 2010
    #14
  15. In message <i3i4oi$65f$-september.org>, victor wrote:

    > One of the purposes might be just as a ritual declaration so you can be
    > a special part of the tribe.
    > The diehard commie freetards miss out on this special righteousness.


    Have an “I Agree†party, invite all your cool friends around to come and
    click the button.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 7, 2010
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2010-08-05 Lawrence D'Oliveiro <_zealand>:
    > If clicking on the ???Accept??? button when an EULA is presented on
    > your screen is supposed to be legally binding,


    It's not where I live. Here you must see and read the terms and
    conditions before hand. Not afterwards. "If you use this website, you
    agree to these terms and conditions <link>" is not valid either.

    > then what about other users of your
    > machine who use that same software, but never saw the EULA or clicked that
    > button? If the EULA is supposed to apply equally to them as well, then
    > clicking the button must mean nothing.
    Gunnar Gren, Aug 7, 2010
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2010-08-05 Allistar <>:
    > Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >
    > What if you get someone else, such a child, to click the "accept" button for
    > you? Are you still bound by the agreement?


    No. Not if the "child" is under 18 then they can't make agreements without
    the consent of the parent.
    Gunnar Gren, Aug 7, 2010
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2010-08-05 victor <>:
    > [...] the right to transfer the license to a third party,


    You always have that right.

    > the right to transfer the software to another device,


    You always have that right.

    > to upgrade


    You always have that right.

    > etc. That's all conditional on the licensee's acceptance.


    No it's not.
    Gunnar Gren, Aug 7, 2010
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2010-08-05 Gordon <>:
    > On 2010-08-05, impossible <> wrote:
    >> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:p...
    >>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> If clicking on the ?Accept? button when an EULA is presented on your
    >>>> screen is supposed to be legally binding, then what about other users of
    >>>> your machine who use that same software, but never saw the EULA or
    >>>> clicked
    >>>> that button? If the EULA is supposed to apply equally to them as well,
    >>>> then clicking the button must mean nothing.
    >>>
    >>> I would expect the EULA to mention something like "you need to assure that
    >>> all users of this software are familiar with the terms" or something like
    >>> that.
    >>>

    >>
    >> The idea that clicking an "accept" button on a EULA carries any particular
    >> legal weight is a Larry D'Loserite myth. Because software is licensed to
    >> users, not sold, all property rights are retained by the copyright
    >> holder(s) -- this is true whether or not someone acknowledges acceptance of
    >> a license's terms and conditions or not, and it is as true of software
    >> licensed under the GPL as it is of software licensed under a EULA. Clicking
    >> an "accept" button then is simply a mechanism devised by copyright holders
    >> to (a) draw attention to their intellectual property rights, (b) ensure that
    >> users are well-informed of their legal responsibilities to abide by the
    >> licensing terms , and, optionally, (c) block a would-user who does not
    >> accept the terms and conditions of use from installing the software.

    >
    > impossible, are you okay? Or has someone else posted?
    >
    > For this posting is right out, away from, your character.


    And property, there is no property involved in computerprograms.
    Gunnar Gren, Aug 7, 2010
    #19
  20. In message <>, Gunnar Gren wrote:

    > 2010-08-05 victor <>:
    >> [...] the right to transfer the license to a third party,

    >
    > You always have that right.
    >
    >> the right to transfer the software to another device,

    >
    > You always have that right.
    >
    >> to upgrade

    >
    > You always have that right.


    Not if the vendor doesn’t give those rights to you. For example, the
    Microsoft OEM Windows licence doesn’t allow transferring to another machine.
    It doesn’t even allow you to keep the installation for your own use. And
    Office 2010 doesn’t offer “upgrades†from any previous Office version you
    might own.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Aug 7, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Max Quordlepleen

    W2K SP4 EULA -Opinions?

    Max Quordlepleen, Jun 27, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    512
    William Poaster
    Jun 27, 2003
  2. Bob

    EULA script error

    Bob, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    924
  3. zxcvbob

    Recovering EULA for Windows 2000 using regedit

    zxcvbob, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,537
    °Mike°
    Jul 11, 2004
  4. Vonuk the face-keelhauler

    Always read the EULA

    Vonuk the face-keelhauler, Feb 11, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    415
  5. Silverstrand
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    724
    Silverstrand
    Oct 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page