Discussion on:

Microsoft should demystify their software licensing process

Do you read all of the EULAs that accompany Microsoft software or any software for that matter? Would you like to see Microsoft take the lead and simplify all of their licenses?

I've never read a EULA in my life and Microsoft's licensing and damn activation keys, are two of the major reasons I moved over to Linux and have never looked back.

Deb is dead right. Microsoft needs to massively prune their whole licensing structure and particularly, make it understandable for any normal human being.

In fact, in the future, it is likely they will have to reconsider their whole business model, as I don't see paying for software (in the conventional sense) as a model that will survive.

It's clear they are already feeling the heat, and although Windows computers are not suddenly going to disappear over night, their strangle hold is not what it once was. Failure to move with the times, will take it's toll. You only have to look at Nokia or RIM to see that.

If I buy a refrigerator and I move house, I don't have to worry about using it. I just plug it in and off it goes. Software should be no different.

Would that be one that paid attention is school and learned all they were taught? Or is it someone who didn't gave a dang, slacked off and now wants someone else to do their thinking for them? If it's the latter, they can deal with the consequences of their choices themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Clearly, you need "normal human being" to be defined.

A person of normal intellect that doesn't have a legal degree, but can still understand the written word and a Microsoft licence.

Hope that helps.

Does anyone here read every word in EULAs?

In my opinion, most of these are unreasonably long. So much so that the software vendors can't reasonably believe that users are reading them. It is ridiculous that a 10 page EULA that can change every month is legally binding.

Imagine buying a house, then a week after you've moved in someone shows up and throws a stack of papers at you saying you have to move out or follow these rules.

I thought I may be out on limb here, but it seems not.

I have not only read every word in a few lengthy MS EULAs from time to time -- I have actually re-read until I was sure I understood everything in some, and done the same with every major GNU license version (AGPL, LGPL, and GPL 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0) as well. Then again, I founded a small copyright licensing policy advocacy initiative, and tend to really care about things like what legal conditions apply when I recommend software to someone (or don't recommend software, as the case may be) as a consultant. I'm pretty weird that way, though; the vast majority of people I have met with strong opinions on licensing have never even read the entire Apache License, let alone the GPL or any MS EULA. They've usually read the MIT/X11 License and one of the BSD licenses, though.

The people who don't really give a crap about licensing at all, on the other hand, have never even read that. Most, in fact, have not even read a copyright notice on most software, and probably have wildly inaccurate ideas about what "copyright" means even in the most general terms.

The WinXP EULAs, and the last Win2K EULA, reached a breaking point for me, where the terms of the license had gotten so nutso that I would no longer allow myself to rely on MS software as the primary platform for my computing life.

If you were true to your word, you wouldn't be posting or reading these words.

But just because I no longer use Windows personally (or professionally), doesn't mean I've lost interest in what's going on in the world around me. In fact, in what I now do, it would be commercially fatal not to.

Additionally, I often find Deb's articles interesting, although not always agreeing with her sentiments. On this occasion however, I believe she's pretty much spot on. One can argue with the terminology (as Apotheon has later in the thread), but the sentiment in my view is correct.

In the IT world, one cannot ignore the major player, even though on occasions, we may all wish to.

Shrewd observation though!

It's an excellent article, and I said so at some length (before going on to say a few other things at some length -- about 3.6K words of length, in total):

http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity

and as always, well presented.

Microsoft Licensing is a nightmare to deal with and that is just VL Product with Software Assurance which was not mentioned above.

The one thing I have figured out over the years I have dealt with VL Product is that I have built up a very strong friendship with the Head of M$ Legal here as I ask her every time I have a query about M$ Licensing.

I used to make the mistake of ringing the Licensing Hotline and asking whatever questions I had but then I found out that if I rang twice within 15 minutes of each other and got a different operator I got a different answer. It just got worse if more time passed and far more confusing. Now I just ring M$ Legal and do what I am told is the right thing and get it in writing.

That way if I'm given the wrong directions I'm not about to get sued for following the head of M$ Legal Advice.

All Software Licensing is a joke at best and a Nightmare normally which is sent to drive you crazy and send you broke, because you make a simple mistake of listening to what you are told by the representative at the Licensing divisions of different companies.

I still remember ringing the M$ Partner Technical Support line telling the operator that I had VL software installed on 5 different systems and that one of them wasn't working right and the next thing I knew was I was talking to someone from M$ Legal because I had told them that I was Pirating the Software. Seems that even when you ring the Partners Line they don't listen to what you are asking and treat everyone as a criminal who have to prove that they are doing no wrong.

Then I can remember the advice from a Corporate QC that the EULA said that the software could be used on 2 different CPUs so that meant that it could be installed on 2 different computers. They wouldn't have it any other way so I just suggested that they do as they please and they could deal with what happened latter.

Though the reality is that nothing was ever going to happen to them as they had the Legal Background to defend any action and where not ideal for M$ in that case to bother with.. Of course if it was me who followed that advice I would be chassed all over by M$ and hung out to dry not to mention going broke in the process and being listed on the M$ Enforcement Alerts as a Pirate. Where as the person giving the advice would be left alone and if they followed their own advice would not be bothered with. The Legal Departments of those companies only go after the Easy options and never fight a case where they may not have the outcome that they want.

After all they dont want to set a Precedent that may not be in their best interests.

Col

If MS can't correctly explain how to acquire a legal license for a product (when a consumer directly asks them) that should be grounds to rule Microsoft's license(s) invalid.

The only reason they are this complex is so that they can "trip you up" and demand more money from you.

Is ultimately about "tripping the customer up". It's about convincing the client that something you paid $100 for is actually worth $200 to them. What's the problem with bringing it out into the open and not hiding the reality from the punters?

It's a bit like "cyber-squatting". What's the problem with out-smarting a company and making money by doing it? It's what we do anyway so why hide it?

and B. it's called "ethics". If you don't know what that is you are probably already a lawyer.

a case of making ourselves feel better about what we do by claiming that others do it. Not that that's any kind of reason for doing anything.

Before I retired I managed VL for a company and when I had queries with MS UK I found I seemed to know more than them having read the bizantine licensing booklet. I remember hitting the bizarre world of software when dealing with Digital Research UK over CP/M licensing in the 80s so the problem goes back before MS. I'm not anti-American but I think the problem centres around West Coast legal culture; it's the legal guys who assume every one is bad by default that drive the licensing rules. Here in Europe the legal culture is different with more of an assumption that users are 'reasonable' people so local software companies tend to have simpler EULAs. Change will only happen when the legal guys in software corporates have less power then they have today and the Customer Service teams drive more of the end-result. It requires and enlightened CEO to make this happen. MS could make a start by simplifying the server user seats rules.

I deal with Microsoft Licensing in our manufacturing and development departments. What a nightmare! SLP was OK and not too much fuss. OA2 licensing is more of a pain but manageable. The next Win 8 version of licensing, called OA3, is going to be the worst yet. Systems must be attached to the internet in order to activate at the client's site. We need to implement servers to track license usage and report it to Microsoft. What??? OA3 is the reason we will likely skip Win 8 and wait for Win 9 and a smoother licensing process (hopefully). Or go all Linux...................

In order to use this software product, you, the consumer, agree to the following:
1: to only use the license on one personal computer,
2: not to redistribute the software or license key to anyone else
3: to pay the standard cost for the software

Wow. That was worth a million dollars at least. I should be a lawyer.

If you were a lawyer, what you just wrote would morph into a 200 page document not even God could understand. I like your non-lawyer version much better and suggest that all companies adopt it. I would add one thing: Include a "family license" where a person could install the software on up to, say, 10 computers as long as they were all his or members of his immediate family living in the same house (or words to that effect). I've always thought it ridiculous that I should have to buy the software (or a license) for each system I want it on.

I still remember the one time I actually read a EULA, it was for some small freeware program I downloaded. It could have been written by John Cleese. It was hilarious. Essentially, the author didn't care what you did with it. Wish I could remember the program.

I like my licenses as simple as (reasonably) possible, both as a software developer and as a software user:

http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity

As for humorous licenses, I may be biased, but I like the Nietzsche Public License:

http://copyfree.org/licenses/nietzschepl/license.txt

at the Nietzshe license (the one I read years ago was funnier, and more readable), but it and the other one are still more legalese-ish than I like. I think the simplicity and readability of blarman's is the way to go. We can couple that with restrictions on the crap lawyers can pull to try to get around it.

We should have fixed this mess back in the 1980's when computers began to become mainstream devices. We also should have insisted on the right to return software that did not work on our systems.

It's probably too late now.

QUOTE: The contract that governs an individual???s use of a piece of software is usually known as an End User License Agreement (EULA). A EULA is somewhat unusual in comparison to other contracts because you don???t have to actually sign the contract to become bound by its terms. Instead, you may be deemed to have agreed to the terms simply by clicking a button or even merely by opening the box.

That's not a contract. A license is a grant of permission; a contract is an agreement. A license document, often abbreviated to just "license" (thus the confusion), is also not a contract but looks a lot like one. Contracts are explicitly agreed; license documents (or "license agreements") are statements of terms where it is implicitly assumed that the recipient has agreed to those terms. Such a "license agreement" where there is no evidence per se of meaningful agreement with the terms on the part of the recipient is not properly enforceable -- which is not the same as not being enforceable; it just means that even when enforced effectively, that flies in the face of any kind of reasonable sense of justice.

The way it works in theory is that one is bound by strict copyright restrictions unless agreeing to the license. The defense of "I didn't agree to the terms of the license" just means you were not aware of the conditions of the grant of a license elaborated upon in the license document, and thus were not properly aware of a license grant (per se) at all. That's not much of a defense, considering that the point of a license grant is that now you get to do something you would not previously have been allowed to do (i.e. install and run the software, except to the extent the doctrine of fair use comes into play to allow that), but only subject to specific restrictions in consideration of the agreement. By rejecting those considerations on the grounds that you did not agree to the terms, you also reject that license grant, reverting to a state of probably having just violated minimal copyright restrictions.

All of this is theory, of course. No set of laws and interpretations thereof makes one whit of difference if you end up in court and the judgment goes the other way. I'm not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; proceed at your own risk. I'm just pointing out (in a very long-winded way) that a license is not a contract.

Especially considering that so much of their profit and industrial leverage springs from their legal department's many jolly court room romps over liscensing issues?

I think the "anti-EULA" levels things out fairly.

http://boingboing.net/2007/01/25/reasonableagreemento.html

Simplifying licensing is a great goal. The major problem though is "how". There are a few big problems here:

* Software is not like your butcher/baker examples. With those examples there it costs the supplier to obtain more meat/buns/whatever. With software nearly 100% of the cost is in writing the software in the first place. The cost to sell one more license is normally very close to $0. That means you want to segregate your customers. You want to get as much money as you can for the product from each person. Some people will find immense value in Windows and will use every feature. Maybe they're a business customer and will make money by using the product. These users will be happily pay more than your average home user that just wants to use Facebook and check emails. That why there's home, pro and ultimate versions of Windows.

* Much of the complexity exists to help end users. To use an example the author mentioned - upgrade licenses. Sure, it would be simpler to only have full versions but that would mean users that want to buy the next version have to pay the full price every time. Upgrade licenses add to the complexity, but it would cost users more without them. Much of the complexity came about for this same reason... per device licensing, per processor etc.

* Microsoft is a big company with millions of users. Unfortunately they need lots of precise legal terminology because people can and do look for any loophole they can.

* It's not related to the complexity, but I think it's worth pointing out for every customer that bought extra licenses to play it safe, there are probably 50 users that do the wrong thing. I know loads of business customers that have gone to their local retail store to buy a copy of Office. They inevitably buy home and student versions. They usually install that one license on all their machines. These aren't dishonest people - it's just human nature. You look for the cheapest product that fills your needs - "Oh look, this one's only $150 and includes Word and Outlook. That's all I need". These people are often shocked when I tell them they need to buy another license for each additional PC. And then there's the people that happily pirate Microsoft products - there are plenty of them. Overall I don't think Microsoft comes out ahead because of their licensing complexity.


I actually don't think things are as complex as the author makes out. I consult in the SMB segment and dealing with licensing is generally very easy. The hardware we buy always comes with an OEM license of Windows. Some clients are big enough to warrant volume licenses, in which case we get a single key, plug it in to our image and forget about it. Not hard.

On the Office side it's much the same. We generally buy either retail licenses or open a volume agreement. The former is a slight pain with images since we have to change key and activate in each one. It adds a couple of minutes to the set up time of each PC. Bigger clients open a volume license. As above , you get a single key and add it to your image. Done.


I think if we're going to advocate simplifying licensing we need to give examples, and I haven't seen any examples yet. I can think of a few:

* Office licensing on terminal servers. You can only user per-device licenses for Office. That's silly and expensive to stick with (Use RDP from your iPhone once - buy another license. Use RDP from a hotel Internet kiosk - another copy of Office per machine please). MS should allow per-user, and I think should go back to also allowing retail copies on a terminal server (like they used to with Office 2003).

* This isn't an EULA issue but an implementation one - I've noticed if you use a volume key on Office 2010 on a PC image you need to reactive/repair Office on each machine (unless you use a local activation server). This is a pain they should do away with.

Actually, they're the only two I can think of off the top of my head. Has anyone got any more concrete examples?