Amorphous EULAs
Thu, 2006-08-17 09:11 — Matthew Davidson
A Slashdot reader raises an interesting point (yes, it does happen from time to time). He bought a license to use a particular product. The vendor then admitted that the product was critically defective and released a fix for the defects. In fact the vendor has done this four times since the original release. However, the customer cannot apply these fixes unless he agrees to additional licensing terms that accompany each fix.
In order to use a product that genuinely works as originally advertised, the customer must agree to licensing terms that he did not agree to at the time he purchased the right to use the product. That's quite a scam.
- Matthew Davidson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Sponsored by:
Comments
legal nightmares
Back in 1997 or 1998 my Dad kindly forked out to get me a computer to upgrade the tired old 486, I still use the same keyboard, monitor and mouse. He went to a shop and bought a lock, stock and barrel proprietry job, but I was not complaining. I was so pleased with it, I happily read through all the licensing documentation and the various instructions. Nothing I read warned me not to wipe the master boot record. Nothing warned me that important security information had been stored on the MBR and that removal will result in the loss of rights to use Windows on the machine. Nothing. But the vendor didn't care that there was no warning and invited me to take action if I so chose. Take action? If anything I must thank that vendor for giving me a sharp push into a world in which I feel infinitely more comfortable.
It just takes enough resistance to counter the momentum of the status quo.