Instalment Of Computer Software Without Risk - Software License Protection
It's a sharp question and there's a good chance you disagree with the answer: are you also disregarding your software program security? Well, sure you are! That is, unless you are one of the 0.1 pct of people who do scan the End User License Agreement (EULA, also known as software license). Else, well, then you sign contracts blindly because that package - filled with legal mumbo-jumbo - when you install a program, yes, it is a contract indeed!
Recall from approximately 5 years ago when Gator created a storm of protest. Its GAIN Publishing End User License Agreement (EULA, also known as software license) declared the user was automatically agreeing in also setting up the GAIN AdServer software when accepting the EULA. So, the software license dedicated the company permission to install software that accumulated certain identifiable data about the user's web browsing and computer usance. This software came straight along with the freeware and was installed in the same process. At the finish, this resulted in a display of all types of ads on the users computer.
Several software licenses go extremely far. The EULA from Gator even unauthorized the use of frequent uninstallers for their freeware - on which countless individuals trusted - to remove this uncalled-for stuff. But also, users were prohibited from using devices like web monitoring programs on the GAIN AdServer and its messages, thus ruling out all potential control. Apparently, that is no longer connected to software protection against cracking; and it was more than a bridge too far for numerous users.
But then, if all is set in the software license, then that is also what must be able to help determine about what users want to have installed, or not! Indeed, especially the software balancing at the edge of lawful boundaries will try to straighten what is not completely right. And you guessed it right: that is most frequently revealed in the EULA.
Up to now, all may seem rather normal, even so, the software license is ill-famed for containing stealthy clauses maintaining absurd restrictions on the behaviour of software users, whilst providing the software developer or vendor with unproportionally intruding powers. For instance, Microsoft software licenses afford the company the right to gather information about the user's system and its usage and to provide this information to other organisations. They also accord Microsoft the right to make changes to the user's computer without calling for permission. Now, don't be mistaken by reasoning this is a Microsoft-only matter since software licenses frequently have a clause that tolerates vendors to cause changes to users' systems without involving or notifying the user.
Remark that appending the wrong material to software has for the most part occurred with freeware, even so, there seems a trend lately to shift those negative habits towards shareware and trialware, yes also the Terms Of Service (TOS) of several famous companies have been under attack.
An exemple is Facebook who converted its TOS back to the old one after people complained in mass that the terms of use all of a sudden pronounced that Facebook retained all rights to the users content, even if the latter deleted his account.
Lately, the trend to include more and more restrictions on what users can do with the software they pay for becomes rather distressing. Certain license agreements now prohibit users from publishing information about the working of the software package. That effectively keeps reviewers as well as software surety experts from covering about their experiences with a specific piece of software. Such determinations are way past protection against criminal utilizes.
It is lawyer material but you may wonder whether these licenses are legitimate. According to attorneys though, most of them do survive in tribunal, the exception being if the text is not at least somewhat comprehensible. Another exception has to do with children who are generally liberated for the agreements established this way.
That a EULA might not be legally enforceable - for whatever cause - is of little consolation because it is being imposed on you whether you wish it or not. Once the program is installed on your machine, the damage is done and it doesn't even count if the ratified contract were legally invalid. Already only by using the computer, the user is validating his contribution of the contract.
The elementary idea behind the software license - making a lucid legitimate defense against illegal software piracy - has long been bypassed indeed. Well, be warned, a click of the computer mouse could develop a good share of inconvenience. So, only one advice can be given: put away that blindfold, do read the EULA, and that does not apply for freeware only!
Recall from approximately 5 years ago when Gator created a storm of protest. Its GAIN Publishing End User License Agreement (EULA, also known as software license) declared the user was automatically agreeing in also setting up the GAIN AdServer software when accepting the EULA. So, the software license dedicated the company permission to install software that accumulated certain identifiable data about the user's web browsing and computer usance. This software came straight along with the freeware and was installed in the same process. At the finish, this resulted in a display of all types of ads on the users computer.
Several software licenses go extremely far. The EULA from Gator even unauthorized the use of frequent uninstallers for their freeware - on which countless individuals trusted - to remove this uncalled-for stuff. But also, users were prohibited from using devices like web monitoring programs on the GAIN AdServer and its messages, thus ruling out all potential control. Apparently, that is no longer connected to software protection against cracking; and it was more than a bridge too far for numerous users.
But then, if all is set in the software license, then that is also what must be able to help determine about what users want to have installed, or not! Indeed, especially the software balancing at the edge of lawful boundaries will try to straighten what is not completely right. And you guessed it right: that is most frequently revealed in the EULA.
Up to now, all may seem rather normal, even so, the software license is ill-famed for containing stealthy clauses maintaining absurd restrictions on the behaviour of software users, whilst providing the software developer or vendor with unproportionally intruding powers. For instance, Microsoft software licenses afford the company the right to gather information about the user's system and its usage and to provide this information to other organisations. They also accord Microsoft the right to make changes to the user's computer without calling for permission. Now, don't be mistaken by reasoning this is a Microsoft-only matter since software licenses frequently have a clause that tolerates vendors to cause changes to users' systems without involving or notifying the user.
Remark that appending the wrong material to software has for the most part occurred with freeware, even so, there seems a trend lately to shift those negative habits towards shareware and trialware, yes also the Terms Of Service (TOS) of several famous companies have been under attack.
An exemple is Facebook who converted its TOS back to the old one after people complained in mass that the terms of use all of a sudden pronounced that Facebook retained all rights to the users content, even if the latter deleted his account.
Lately, the trend to include more and more restrictions on what users can do with the software they pay for becomes rather distressing. Certain license agreements now prohibit users from publishing information about the working of the software package. That effectively keeps reviewers as well as software surety experts from covering about their experiences with a specific piece of software. Such determinations are way past protection against criminal utilizes.
It is lawyer material but you may wonder whether these licenses are legitimate. According to attorneys though, most of them do survive in tribunal, the exception being if the text is not at least somewhat comprehensible. Another exception has to do with children who are generally liberated for the agreements established this way.
That a EULA might not be legally enforceable - for whatever cause - is of little consolation because it is being imposed on you whether you wish it or not. Once the program is installed on your machine, the damage is done and it doesn't even count if the ratified contract were legally invalid. Already only by using the computer, the user is validating his contribution of the contract.
The elementary idea behind the software license - making a lucid legitimate defense against illegal software piracy - has long been bypassed indeed. Well, be warned, a click of the computer mouse could develop a good share of inconvenience. So, only one advice can be given: put away that blindfold, do read the EULA, and that does not apply for freeware only!
Source...