how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
 EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7
 ·Callcentric
1 edit | reply to K McAleavey
End user agreement revocation Kevin, perhaps a question for the lawyers - If a user, for whatever reason, ceases to agree with the terms of the license agreement for a product, would that not provide a duty to remove it? If there is nothing in the agreement or in law that states the user must agree forever, the user can revoke his agreement with the terms and thereby be entitled, if not required, to remove the product.
If that's the case, a removal dialog box that says something like;
"I confirm that I revoke my agreement with the license terms of the software about to be removed and am removing this software to comply with my revocation of agreement and the terms of the software license"
Followed by a radio button, "Click "agree" to continue"
I'm sure the lawyers could refine that.
--
In Memoriam -
NRK 1 FEB 1918 - 6 NOV 2005
B-17 pilot -
50 missions over Europe and North Africa -
347th Squadron, 99th Bomb Group -
Husband, Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, friend ---
A knight and gentleman gone to peace
| |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | Welcome to MY legal dilemma ... if you examine the usual EULA's, you'll see that you agree to sell your soul to the devil, but NOTE that there seems to never be a "my backside hurts" clause. 
But legally, there seems to never be any "revocation" other than removing the software. In THIS case, even THAT doesn't buy back your soul, and THAT is what I have a problem with. We'll forget the right wing, left wing, "vendor", etc. Folks who know Nancy and I know we go beyond fair to our customers at our own expense, but such is NOT the province of seemingly anyone else.
What is particularly irksome though is that *WE* refused to be a party of the "agreement" with SONY and "First4" in which a number of other vendors agreed SOLELY to go after JUST the "rootkit" ... we nail the whole enchilada because we REFUSED to be a party to the "non-disclosure" ... we figured out what they were doing by our OWN means a while ago and refused to be a signatory to this "deal" by which ONLY the rootkit itself is removed, and not the REST.
But what *I* am angered about is that we can't give away our solution to this for FREE because that would legally expose us. THAT upsets me to no end given that I've already written
the code. And we're going to be forced to BURN it.
(edited to remove confusion)
--
Kevin McAleavey support@nsclean.com (Makers of BOClean - BOClean means never having to do an HJT log again)
»www.nsclean.com | |
EGeezerSummertimePremium
join:2002-08-04
Midwest
kudos:7 Reviews:
·Callcentric
| But still, it brings up the question - If there is no prohibition against a user ceasing agreement with the terms, it seems the user can revoke and thereby be free to - or even required - to remove the product.
Now if the license agreement does not specify irrevocation of agreement, then it seems that no prohibition would exist and the user would be able to declare "I no longer agree with the license terms".
This would probably be better argued by good lawyers at any rate.
--
In Memoriam -NRK 1 FEB 1918 - 6 NOV 2005B-17 pilot -50 missions over Europe and North Africa - 347th Squadron, 99th Bomb Group - Husband, Father, Grandfather, Great Grandfather, friend --- A knight and gentleman gone to peace | |
|
