The following is the refreshing Licensing Agreement from Winamp’s new developers beta of WinAmp 3:
This is beta software. Play with it as much as you like, but don’t blame us if it melts your computer into a pile of scrap metal or steals your girlfriend. Check out the readme.txt for some features to try out.
Is that not much more effective than ICQ’s Licensing Agreement? Both companies are owned by the same mega-corporation, btw.
Along the same lines, also check out another of Winamp’s download agreements.
Ah, the beauty of the ICQ licence…as the farmer sees the field plump with autumn’s bounty, as the fisher thrills at the weight of nets full of glistening fish, as the artist is overwhelmed by the retrospective of his own works so am I filled with pride at the unwordwrappable cacaphony of strings of seemingly overlapping, superfluous and redundant verbs and nouns. Consider the mind which knew to deny users the power to “reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, alter, duplicate, make copies, create derivative works from, distribute or provide others with” something. Only a clear, powerful and supremely sentient being can distinguish between “decompiling” and “disassembling” or – even better – between “distributing” and “providing others with”. Just think…somewhere, one a day not so long ago, someone went home perhaps brimming with a secret pride or perhaps knowing that the committee was fully behind him. That person was an ICQ in-house counsel!
I’m curious actually: is the oh so clever Winamp agreement any less “legal” and protective than the ICQ liscensing agreement? I would think that if any defendent tried suing Winamp when their computer wouldn’t reboot or all their files were deleted, that a judge would laugh and tell them they were lucky it didn’t steal their girlfriend.
I think that anyone who provides a widget for a commercial purpose such as a beta application can’t rely on the statement “don’t blame us”. It may be beta technologically but the reason for putting it is the market is very much tied to real commercial ends – obtaining loyalty and free testing processes. People are induced to use it through coaxing as to the innovativeness of the widget and the flattery that one is clever enough to use it. If it actually fried my computer I’d think about sue for negligence under manufacturers liability…well not my computer a 1995 Pentium 75…but maybe a commercial system. If the relationship between the beta was known, was avoidable with further development prior to release, was sufficently proximate to the damage and the damage was foreseeable, just saying “don’t blame us” may not protect the company. Consider that if it were known that one in a million litres of milk carries an infection. Could the milk company say “don’t blame us” in stead of taking further care which could reduce that risk.
This is why everyone hates lawyers.
Thanks for your input Al (for those who couldn’t tell from his smooth talkin’, Al is a lawyer).
I wonder does it make any difference if the widget is free. The obvious example is open source software. Even in this case though, there are legal entities established to protect the individual contributors from litigation (although, I think these entities are in place as much to reassure corporations considering adopting open source solutions that they’ll have someone to sue if things go sour).
Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape, etc. There are loads of free applications. Both Winamp and ICQ are free. However, there is a key difference between the two – rather, and imagined difference. Winamp is a full final release product and is completely free. ICQ, on the other hand, is claimed by its producer to be in perpetual beta, always reserving the right to call it ‘real’ software and start charging at any moment.
Does this affect liability?
I have seen common sense prevail in legal details before. My father was in line early one Saturday morning a few years ago at our Brookvale Provincial Ski Park with a zillion other tired parents. They were there to sign their children up to the (very good) ski school. It was a mad house and they were being asked to sign a few different forms, one of which was a very long waiver.
A man waiting in line next to my father, a lawyer, told him that no judge would hold anyone to a waiver signed under these circumstances (rushed, pressured, no time given read the agreement).
The bottom line is that no one can self-declare that they are free from legal implications of their activities. There may be factors that come into play to make them less liable such as whether they are free (but is anything really free or is the economic gain just re-routed) but just saying “don’t blame me” is pretty silly.
Am I going to get a bill for reading this Al?
If I develop a piece of software for my own use and decide, “Hmmm, other people might find this useful too!”, can’t I put it up on the net with a disclaimer that says, “This works for me, it may not work for you. Use at your own risk, I take no responsibility!”?
I’m not declaring my activities free from legal implications, just my widget.
I have a pool in my backyard and the 6 foot fence around it that law dictates. If I leave my gate open and you walk in a drown, I can be sued. If the gate is closed and locked and you climb the fence and drown, it’s your fault. Isn’t the closed, locked gate my EULA?
Not if you gate is rickety and your fence bottom is eight inches from the ground and the sound of the pool attracts a four year old…There is always a cricumstance that can undo a perfect out.