I guess I must be losing my edge in my old age. After all, earlier this week I published a story that had more kudos for Costco than gripes about other retail stores, and today I'm writing about a surprisingly good EULA from a software developer. But I can't help but agree with the reader who sent me the license agreement for JGsoft's EditPad Pro that seems written in a way that, rather than taking away usage rights, actually gives the product more value for the customer.
Our recent discussions about licensing the machine or the user led the reader to point out how JGsoft deals with that issue in its EditPad Pro text editor. "The folks at JGsoft have gotten it right as far as EULAs are concerned," the reader wrote. "Basically, they say use the software with either licensing model, one machine or one user, but not both. Finally, a have-it-your-way EULA."
The EditPad Pro EULA, which I've posted in our EULA Library here on the Gripe Wiki, explains it this way:
"If a single user license was bought, the Licensee has the option of installing the Software on a single machine possibly used by one or more persons, or installing the Software on several machines used exclusively by a single person. Any combination of these options, or installing the Software on a network server, is not permitted."
The reader points out that JGsoft on its website makes it quite explicit that its purpose is to provide a completely portable license for those customers who need it. "All this makes it easy for you to put EditPad Pro in a removable medium, such as a floppy or CD, and carry it with you wherever you go," the JGsoft website states. "You can use it on other people's computers without leaving any trace on their hard disks. As long as you are the only user and you do not install the software on other people's computers, this is perfectly acceptable under the EditPad Pro license agreement."
That's certainly an unusual attitude for a software company adopt. And there are some other things the EditPad Pro EULA says that I think can be commended. For the most part, it steers clear of the worst disclaimers of express warranties and limitations on use. And, with my long-standing interest in how licenses and software bugs interact, I was intrigued with this section on how the company handles bug fix releases:
"When errors are found in the Software, the Vendor will release a new version of the Software that no longer contains those errors a reasonable amount of time after the Vendor is given an accurate description of those errors. Which amount of time is reasonable will depend on the complexity and severity of the errors. The Vendor will mention the release on the Web Site and, at the Vendor's option, directly contact the Licensee to announce the new release. The Licensee can then, at their option, upgrade to the latest version or to continue to use the older version the Licensee already has. In either case, no payment to the Vendor is required. In the latter case, the Licensee will no longer be entitled to technical support until the Licensee has upgraded to the latest version."
You won't find many license agreements that acknowledge customers have a right to bug fixes for free. Of course, the JGsoft EULA is not completely without its faults. It's much longer and complex than it really needs to be, and it gets particularly confusing to no good end while trying to explain its policies regarding distribution of its evaluation version. Like so many EULAs, its ban on reverse engineering activities would only seem to limit fair use rights rather than code stealing. And, given the license's liberal stance on using a single license on different machines, it's hard to understand why it doesn't allow multi-user licenses to be used in concurrent fashion.
But, then again, maybe I'm just nitpicking to prove I haven't turned into a total Pollyanna. The important thing to get out of this is the fact that there really are software publishers, albeit mostly small ones, who try to give customers a fair shake with their license agreements. We've seen evidence of this before while we were developing the FEULA, and readers have posted a few other examples in the EULA Library in the last few weeks. So while we don't want to lose our edge when it comes to criticizing the many outrageous terms still to be found in most EULAs, let's keep in mind those vendors in the real world who demonstrate that a more balanced approach is viable.
Read and post comments about this story here.
2:06:39 PM 
|
|
