The EULA's aren't talking about backups of installed images, they're talking about backups of the installation media.
That's not at all clear from the license text which refers simply to "the software". And even if it only refers to the downloadable installer, that would mean you can't make any backups of it and would have to download a separate copy for each machine you wish to put it on. That's not really a lot better. Again, that's when following the strict letter of the "agreement", not when using common sense. However, contract law isn't built on common sense - it's built on the strict letter of agreements.
But it sounds like you had a pre-planned conclusion, that you were gonna reach no matter what.
For example, here's a snippet of the Adobe Integrated Runtime (AIR) End User License Agreement:
Isn't this a runtime? Don't runtime's get installed on every computer? Just like Adobe Reader is on damned near every computer in usage? Why would you care how many computers have a runtime installed? Runtime's are never money-makers, although licensed dll's can be. But then they don't get their own runtime installer.
You're completely correct. The only thing possibly in their favor is that it's for a beta, and maybe they intended very limited distribution for it. I didn't check whether the production version was under a similarly anti-business license.
At any rate, I didn't really mean to single out Adobe. That was just a convenient example of the kind of wording that irked me, and there are plenty of others just like it (or worse).
For the record (because on slashdot, nobody cares): I didn't figure you meant to single them out, it was the shear hilarity. I wonder if we could get a class action or something, or in some way use this to single out how F*ing stupid the whole EULA concept is...
I mean, if they want to get me to sign something that they then countersign, I'm all for an agreement like that, but this is F*ing ridiculous
"In the long run, every program becomes rococo, and then rubble." -- Alan Perlis
weak (Score:1)
But it sounds like you had a pre-planned conclusion, that you were gonna reach no matter what.
Re: (Score:2)
The EULA's aren't talking about backups of installed images, they're talking about backups of the installation media.
That's not at all clear from the license text which refers simply to "the software". And even if it only refers to the downloadable installer, that would mean you can't make any backups of it and would have to download a separate copy for each machine you wish to put it on. That's not really a lot better. Again, that's when following the strict letter of the "agreement", not when using common sense. However, contract law isn't built on common sense - it's built on the strict letter of agreements.
But it sounds like you had a pre-planned conclusion, that you were gonna reach no matter what.
I
WTF? (Score:2)
OMFG!
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely correct. The only thing possibly in their favor is that it's for a beta, and maybe they intended very limited distribution for it. I didn't check whether the production version was under a similarly anti-business license.
At any rate, I didn't really mean to single out Adobe. That was just a convenient example of the kind of wording that irked me, and there are plenty of others just like it (or worse).
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't figure you meant to single them out, it was the shear hilarity. I wonder if we could get a class action or something, or in some way use this to single out how F*ing stupid the whole EULA concept is...
I mean, if they want to get me to sign something that they then countersign, I'm all for an agreement like that, but this is F*ing ridiculous