dave.ofmassdestruction.com

My history with operating systems is fairly simple. When home computers
were new I started out with an Epson computer(!!) that had its own
operating system which was quirky by today’s standards but was quite
nice in its simplicity. I then moved to an intel-driven DOS machine and
had a love-hate relationship with it. I moved to UNIX/Linux in work and
home life sometime later and obviously concentrated fairly heavily on
that until OS X came along.

I got my first Apple mainly to accommodate my photography obsession
because (even still) using a linux machine with photos absolutely
blows. I enjoy OS X but I also enjoy linux/gnome. However, I have
noticed in the last few years that I have slowly moved away from
OS-dependence. Call it what you will – the Cloud, SAAS, whatev. All I
know is that it is incredibly convenient to be able to sit at any
computer and do all the things I would normally do at my home
computer. In fact, about the only apps I use that aren’t cloud-centric
are emacs and my photo-software. Even still, with emacs I mostly use
org-mode for my work and I keep all my org files online. As long as I
have emacs on a machine, I can do my work. But in a pinch, I could use
another editor on those files since they are simply text-files.

That still leaves photos. The only non-standard,
not-practical-in-the-cloud thing I do. I’ve seen the attempts at photo
editors online, I know that one can use online tools to store and
categorize their photos – but none of those services come close to how I
can do it at home with old-fashioned, closed-source, non-standard,
key-on-the-back-of-the package software. Maybe this means there is an
opportunity in the market or maybe it means that camera manufacturers
are behind-the-times… or maybe it means I am particular with my
photos – I’m not really sure.

I’m not sure what this means for Operating Systems – at least, OSes that
aren’t powering “the Cloud” – but it does feel like a trend that would
lend itself to devices that start quickly and get me online. I see this
progress in the direction the iPad has taken us. Whatever your opinion
is on the particular of that one device – the idea that I can have
a small, “instant-on” device that can get me online is incredibly
appealing. I think the future of such devices in grand.

Now that my Australian friends aren’t talking to me anymore (I can’t help it, the Simpsons are funny!) I’ll turn my attention back to the world of licenses (I’m a party guy)

I read on the New York Times’ Freakonomics Blog a pretty interesting and clever article about making anti-EULA clauses via email. The EULA, of course, is End User License Agreement most famously used by Microsoft in their “if you break this shrinkwrap, you accept the terms…” maneuvers. This article posits that maybe the customer can send their own EULA right back to the company whose software or service presented them with a EULA to begin with.

Something like:

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this email, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (”BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.

I like it. This appeals to some mischievous side I have and to my non-legal brain has about as much merit as most presentations of EULAs. Still, I do think it misses the point a bit.

There was one passage in this article that caught my attention which leads me to why they are missing the point:

In thinking about this issue, it’s useful to separate the question of whether the seller’s or the buyer’s terms are reasonable. There are certainly plenty examples of obnoxious EULAs that have prohibited users from criticizing the seller’s product. But anti-EULAs could also be oppressive — for example, voiding even the reasonable restrictions of the Free Software Foundation’s GNU General Public License.

I wonder if our friends at Freakonomics have actually looked into what has happened to those who have broken the conditions of the GPL? If my memory serves me correctly, only the most recent case has someone actually been taken to court for doing so. Mostly people are sent letters asking them to correct their mistake. Am I wrong in this? I really don’t think so. If anything, the FSF probably could have been more aggressive in this regard.

But let’s not forget that the GPL and a EULA are very much the same thing: copy-right: the right to copy. All this is is a method that defines the rights a creator is granting for someone to have a copy. If you really don’t agree with the rights you are being granted – by all means don’t use it. You can make a fuss about it. You can tell your friends, or even tell the company why you aren’t using it. Yes, the shrinkwrap acceptance is backhanded but just because you don’t like that practice, the license the company has chosen isn’t somehow magically voided. If you want to use their software, you accept the terms. It doesn’t get much simpler.

The Freakonomics guys suggest that we can get around these pesky rights decisions through online payment systems offering anti-EULA protections when paying through their service (of course, that comes after accepting the EULA for their services). Is the idea to use the muscle of Paypal or Google Payments to come down on the evil EULA-doer? This cheapens the law…. or at least moves it into a market-driven corporate realm where the bigger the market-cap, the more correct they are. “I paid you through Google whose market cap is $211B, therefore your copyright is void.” That, to me, is scarier than a EULA.

The system that really needs to be in place is one of education. Lets inform companies that overly-protective rights are not consumer-friendly and are simply bad business. What better way to start that education than clicking on “I do not agree”?