Hacker News Reader

Comment by latitude | Hacker News Reader

I have released several projects under conventional multi-page licenses, covering everything from not suing "licensees of data providers" and force majeure (that may or may not be different from the acts of God). This time around I have a simpler project and I want to try a simpler plain-spoken EULA that boils down to this:

  1. This is an "as is" software 

       that may break
       in which case you won't go after the developer

  2. You won't do objectionable things with the software

Have anyone tried this?

There's just such a stark difference between, say, a BSD license and a license that comes with a typical Windows/Mac software. But since BSD clearly works, so why not try and keep things simple?

EDIT -> added "that boils down to this"

View on HN

That doesn't work at all if it is the actual wording. For point 1 you can find warranty wording in any number of open source or creative commons licenses.

For the second, objectionable requires a definition. For example many would consider the US drone assassination program objectionable, and hence tar US companies and people with the same brush. Does that mean US companies and people can use the software? How many steps do they have to be removed (eg is providing the payroll software to the defense contractor a problem?)

http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA

Because of copyright laws, people can do virtually nothing with software. If you actually want to give the user freedoms - see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html - then pick a well known free software license since it will have already addressed all these issues.

No, duh. Of course this is not the actual wording.

It is here instead - http://pastebin.com/C91fEqAf

You'll never know how good your contracts are until somebody sues. I'd contact a lawyer (and am doing so, for a separate project!)

Been there.

I had several EULAs drafted and/or proofread by lawyers. Inevitably, they feel that if they don't add a bucket of legalspeak, they weren't earning their money. When pressed if this or that wording really needs to be that contrived, they would come back with "not really, but better safe than sorry".

On the other hand there are much simpler licenses that are widely used and that are in fact human readable. BSD and MIT licenses being a couple of examples.

Fair play, and it all depends on the project - although in this case I'd rather sacrifice readability (remember, you can do summaries like http://500px.com/terms to great effect) for peace of mind. Knowing it's been professionally done lets me sleep more soundly!

"they feel that if they don't add a bucket of legalspeak, they weren't earning their money" Then you are hiring the wrong lawyers. I am happy to put you in touch with lawyers that don't feel the urge to randomly wordsmith stuff so that the feel like they are earning their keep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com