Comments on: Trying to Decipher that EULA? Better Have a PhD http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/09/04/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:35:20 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Michel Merlin http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/09/04/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-791780 Michel Merlin Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:18:20 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2944#comment-791780 <strong>Do NOT read any EULA</strong> Most EULAs would not stand 5 minutes before a court (if a real one still existed in 2008), because uselessly too long (making them actually NOT read by most people involved), too unclear and ambiguous (making them inapplicable), and above all, containing clauses that are illegal, unjust, ineffective or illogical. For instance, most include clauses allowing the big party (the company that is publishing the software or operating the telecom or web service) to change that "<em>contract</em>" unilaterally (such clauses being usually hidden behind an opposite appearance), or more generally allowing the big party to violate the core of the obligations, while holding the small one to those same obligations. Many obvious solutions would be possible if there were not a strong intent to deceive customers on a large scale. One is to write a <em>General Public EULA</em> (that could be 5-10 page long). Then each <em>Particular EULA</em> would be only 1-page long, since referring to the GPEULA for all the long common language. The total length the End User would have to read and learn would be much shortened; but even better, the daily instance (when you hit a PEULA to approve) would always be very short. That solution is the one that was used on a very large scale some decades ago for public contracts in French civil works, and probably in most other countries as well; in applying them as designer, or contractor, or redactor, I could experience their high efficiency and fairness. This was in fight against bad intents; unfortunately in the current era those bad intents have become the majority and have overwhelmed all organizations, down to writing those EULAs. As long as none of these obvious solutions is applied, the EULAs proposed can't be honest; reading one would be just helping the bad ones further deceive citizens. In conclusion: Citizens should so far <strong>NEVER READ AN EULA</strong>. Versailles, Fri 5 Sep 2008 16:18:20 +0200 Do NOT read any EULA

Most EULAs would not stand 5 minutes before a court (if a real one still existed in 2008), because uselessly too long (making them actually NOT read by most people involved), too unclear and ambiguous (making them inapplicable), and above all, containing clauses that are illegal, unjust, ineffective or illogical. For instance, most include clauses allowing the big party (the company that is publishing the software or operating the telecom or web service) to change that “contract” unilaterally (such clauses being usually hidden behind an opposite appearance), or more generally allowing the big party to violate the core of the obligations, while holding the small one to those same obligations.

Many obvious solutions would be possible if there were not a strong intent to deceive customers on a large scale. One is to write a General Public EULA (that could be 5-10 page long). Then each Particular EULA would be only 1-page long, since referring to the GPEULA for all the long common language. The total length the End User would have to read and learn would be much shortened; but even better, the daily instance (when you hit a PEULA to approve) would always be very short. That solution is the one that was used on a very large scale some decades ago for public contracts in French civil works, and probably in most other countries as well; in applying them as designer, or contractor, or redactor, I could experience their high efficiency and fairness. This was in fight against bad intents; unfortunately in the current era those bad intents have become the majority and have overwhelmed all organizations, down to writing those EULAs.

As long as none of these obvious solutions is applied, the EULAs proposed can’t be honest; reading one would be just helping the bad ones further deceive citizens. In conclusion:

Citizens should so far NEVER READ AN EULA.

Versailles, Fri 5 Sep 2008 16:18:20 +0200

]]> By: Jack Matier http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/09/04/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-791642 Jack Matier Fri, 05 Sep 2008 03:21:56 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2944#comment-791642 amen amen

]]> By: Desmond K http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/09/04/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-791418 Desmond K Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:20:47 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2944#comment-791418 I can't remember the last time I read one. I can’t remember the last time I read one.

]]> By: Josh Catone http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/09/04/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-791342 Josh Catone Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:18:01 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2944#comment-791342 Thanks Tommy, nice catch. :) Thanks Tommy, nice catch. :)

]]> By: AutisticCuckoo http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/09/04/trying-to-decipher-that-eula-better-have-a-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-791332 AutisticCuckoo Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:51:39 +0000 http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/?p=2944#comment-791332 <blockquote>The result was an average privacy policy weighing in at 3,442 pages</blockquote> I sincerely hope you mean 3,442 <em>words</em>, not pages! Three thousand words is bad enough.

The result was an average privacy policy weighing in at 3,442 pages

I sincerely hope you mean 3,442 words, not pages! Three thousand words is bad enough.

]]>