EULAs

[Karsten M. Self]

on Sat, Jun 01, 2002, Michael Bauer (bauer at michaelbauer.com) wrote:
> 
> I'm working on finding a "generally acceptable" end user license
> agreement.  I have a feeling this quest is quixotic.  The software is
> not open source.  Still, I thought I'd ask the list if such an animal
> exists.  Is such a thing total anathema?  Does something "reasonable"
> exist or all such licenses thought as Draconian as Microsoft's?

All things exist over a range.

I'd look at some of the portions of, say, the various EULAs and UCITA
proposals which have garnered the most criticism -- these are terms that
poeple tend not to like.

One example of a EULA which seemed to have been fairly well accepted
was, IIRC, Borland's long-ago license, early 1990s, which was called
something like the "straightforward licensing agreement".  It allowed
for such things as multiple per-user copies (for multiple machines), and
few restrictions on use of the code.

Beyond this, you're going to be strongly guided by the fears and
interests of the party seeking the license.  I see many software
licenses as less legal studies and more closets of anxieties.  I'm
expecting to find a Giant Purple Snorklewacker clause in a license any
day now.

    http://users.ev1.net/~snork/pics/bloom/chars/snork_strip2.jpg
    http://users.ev1.net/~snork/pics/bloom/chars/snork.gif

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
   Support the EFF, they support you:  http://www.eff.org/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20020602/98eb7226/attachment.sig>