Rough though it still undoubtedly is, is the beta Fair EULA (FEULA) ready to be adopted by software publishers who wish to do so? That's a question I've been mulling over as I prepared the next release of the FEULA.
Last night I posted FEULA version .9.01.1 in the EULA Reviews section on my website. The changes from the first version are relatively minor, mostly wordsmithing that those participating in the online discussion seemed to generally agree needed doing. More substantive changes that might shift the balance point one direction or the other have been proposed, and I invite all who want to participate to continue the discussion of those by posting your comments with the new version.
In the weeks since I published the .9.01 version, however, several software developers have asked me if it's OK for them to adopt the FEULA right away. And, by the way, would I mind if they told the world they were doing so? For several reasons, I wasn't quite sure how I should answer.
The most obvious reason is that the FEULA is still very much in beta form. I would have felt badly if anyone had irrevocably adopted the first version with the dumb mistakes that our commentators have now helped me correct. But I have no doubt that there are other problems that need fixing.
Another issue is that it's still not clear to me or anyone else exactly how one goes about adopting the FEULA. I haven't made a secret that ultimately I think there needs to be some kind of certification process to indicate which vendors have agreed to adopt fair terms. Obviously, that certification process should include the vendor promising to abide by the 12 Principles that AFFECT has introduced at www.fairterms.org. But, like the FEULA, AFFECT's "Stop Before You Click" campaign is in its early stages, so it's going to be a while before we all figure out how a certification process works.
And then there's the unavoidable fact that there are a lot of bad guys out there. So if I say, sure, anyone who wants can sign on to the FEULA right now, what's to keep the purveyors of spyware, spam, phishing scams, etc. from proclaiming they've adopted it? In fact, what's to keep them from making that proclamation by posting it on the GripeLog? (The GripeLog accepts anonymous posts, and I very much want to keep it that way in spite of the never-ending battle that we now have to fight with link spam posts.) I sure don't want to see the FEULA associated with the worst practitioners of the licensing agreement arts rather than the best.
Nonetheless, the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to me that there's really no choice. Ultimately, I can't stop anyone from using the FEULA in whatever form they choose, even if I wanted to -- which I don't. The whole idea is to encourage the use of more balanced licensing terms, and the only way that's going to happen is if real companies start demonstrating that it can be done.
As I've said, the FEULA is a compromise between what software publishers and software customers would like to see, so it's never going to be perfect. And even when we do develop a certification mechanism, there will still be those whose practices won't meet their promises. And do we have an advantage in that respect in that this is, after all, the GripeLog. If someone shady does wrap themselves in the FEULA, that's not going to keep what they're actually doing from being exposed by my readers.
So any hardy souls in the software business who are ready to try out the FEULA are more than welcome. It isn't perfect, but, hey, your software might not be either. Help us figure out how to make fair terms viable in the software marketplace, and we'll see if we can figure out how to reward the companies that have better terms and better software. Post you comments, suggestions, criticisms, and ideas here, or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.
4:24:10 PM 
|
