Get Rid Of The EULA

from the simple-as-that dept

While it's almost definitely not legally enforcible, someone has come up with a script that automatically removes any software's end user license agreement so that users can (truthfully) claim that they never saw or agreed to the EULA. The writer suggests that EULAs are illegal in that they limit what you can do with something that you've bought and own - something that can only be done by law, and not by a corporation.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Dale Gardner, 2 May 2002 @ 5:39am

    Amusing, But Wrong

    I'm not sure where the Register gets its data that click-through license agreements are not enforceable. They might chat with a lawyer, but perhaps including some facts would spoil the fun. Don't get me wrong - licensing terms are often ridiculous (I was just reading something this morning about a Microsoft provision that would prevent the replacement of Windows on a machine with another OS...). But this sort of article isn't really helpful - how about some facts, rather than giggles?

    link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    W klink, 2 May 2002 @ 6:25am

    Re: Amusing, But Wrong

    A California District court (Adobe vs. Softman) did indeed rule that parts of EULA's are not enforceable in that the software was a sale and not a license.

    Note that what makes it a sale is that you go to the store, give them money, and they give you the box. Software that expires and needs new licenses every year is licensed rather than sold.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Dale Gardner, 2 May 2002 @ 6:50am

    Re: Amusing, But Wrong

    Fair enough, but that's not what the article was about - the author of the script asserts that by getting rid of the license, you get rid of the terms. That's rarely the case as most license agreements contain provisions that restrict such behavior - you agree to be bound by the terms even if the actual click-through is bypassed.

    Licensing is very complex and there are a vairety of laws that apply - articles like this one don't really help anybody because the spread misinformation and simplistic views.

    BTW, I disagree with your last statement about the distinction between software that is licensed rather than sold. I believe you'll find that virtually all software is licensed. Expiration only comes into play with respect to the term of the license - which may be perpeptual.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  4. identicon
    IMNAL, 2 May 2002 @ 11:53pm

    Re: Amusing, But Wrong

    You cannot enter into a contract with someone without a "consideration" (except in Japan where it is different). If you do not see the license then it seems to me highly likely that it is not binding in law. You cannot agree to something that you have not been given the opportunity to see.

    link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Wklink (profile), 3 May 2002 @ 6:27am

    Re: Amusing, But Wrong

    It's not *my* distinction, it was the court's. Almost all software *claims* to be licensed. Adobe was certainly claiming that their bundle was licensed. The court said it wasn't a license.

    They just did the standard "duck" test. It looks like a sale (you give money, they give you product), it acts like a sale (there is no on-going relationship after you give them your money), therefore it is a sale. If the software expired or needed to be renewed, then there would be an on-going relationship and, therefore, a license.

    link to this | view in thread ]


Follow Techdirt
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.