lionelhill
Technical User
I have in front of me a disk with CD-writer software on it from a well-known manufacturer. Through the plastic pocket I can see a licence agreement (well, half a licence agreement. Someone alont the vendor chain has stuck a bar-code label over the other half, but with a strong light and some imagination I can read through it).
The agreement has the usual "by opening... or using the Software that has been preloaded ..in your computer, you agree to be bound by the terms..." line.
But when I start the software preloaded on my computer I get a totally different agreement, including the following:
"This agreement grants you ("licensee" a license to:
(a) use the software on a single computer system, which is not intended for use by more than five (5) users;"
Now this seems a bit heavy: the way it's written sounds like not only do they want to limit the number of people using their software (reasonable), but they actually want to limit the number of people using my computer, even if none of those users are granted access to the folder holding the software to which this EULA applies.
As a result I'm having to pay up to buy a different bit of software so I can use the machine for the purpose it was originally purchased.
I am not very happy with this:
(1) the EULA you can see through the celophane isn't the one that's embedded in the programme, so it seems unfair to tell someone they've accepted it by the act of removing the celophane.
(2) What right does a software manufacturer have to dictate the use of hardware and software that they did not produce? When that software is sitting on a hard disk and not being executed, it isn't very much different to a diskette sitting on a bookshelf - it could be executed, but it is currently just being stored. Yet no one can tell me that because I have a diskette from some company on my bookshelf I am not allowed to let more than 5 people read a book that is also sitting on the same shelf, can they?
In the same way as I can safeguard the diskette by locking it in a box, I can safeguard the software by granting access to its folder only to certain individuals. And I keep my password as safe as I'd keep the physical key to the diskette box, so the analogy holds good. Surely this EULA is a little unreasonable?
(3) Of course no system vendor is going to get caught up in silly little things like this, and no user is going to kick up a massive stink about such a small amount of cash. But multiplied by the number of people who must be using this software, either a lot of people are being cheated, or a lot of people are simply ignoring the EULA. In which case why bother having it?
The agreement has the usual "by opening... or using the Software that has been preloaded ..in your computer, you agree to be bound by the terms..." line.
But when I start the software preloaded on my computer I get a totally different agreement, including the following:
"This agreement grants you ("licensee" a license to:
(a) use the software on a single computer system, which is not intended for use by more than five (5) users;"
Now this seems a bit heavy: the way it's written sounds like not only do they want to limit the number of people using their software (reasonable), but they actually want to limit the number of people using my computer, even if none of those users are granted access to the folder holding the software to which this EULA applies.
As a result I'm having to pay up to buy a different bit of software so I can use the machine for the purpose it was originally purchased.
I am not very happy with this:
(1) the EULA you can see through the celophane isn't the one that's embedded in the programme, so it seems unfair to tell someone they've accepted it by the act of removing the celophane.
(2) What right does a software manufacturer have to dictate the use of hardware and software that they did not produce? When that software is sitting on a hard disk and not being executed, it isn't very much different to a diskette sitting on a bookshelf - it could be executed, but it is currently just being stored. Yet no one can tell me that because I have a diskette from some company on my bookshelf I am not allowed to let more than 5 people read a book that is also sitting on the same shelf, can they?
In the same way as I can safeguard the diskette by locking it in a box, I can safeguard the software by granting access to its folder only to certain individuals. And I keep my password as safe as I'd keep the physical key to the diskette box, so the analogy holds good. Surely this EULA is a little unreasonable?
(3) Of course no system vendor is going to get caught up in silly little things like this, and no user is going to kick up a massive stink about such a small amount of cash. But multiplied by the number of people who must be using this software, either a lot of people are being cheated, or a lot of people are simply ignoring the EULA. In which case why bother having it?