ie8 fix

Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Death of the black box EULA

By | November 25, 2009, 6:03am PST

Summary: The makers of black boxes know they can’t hold customers to their EULAs forever. They have to compete with free. The eye of Gates has fallen. The age of men has begun.

Computing’s greatest accomplishment of this decade will likely go unremarked in the popular press.

I call it the “death of the black box EULA.” (Picture from the blog Fortunes Pawn Luncheonette, December 2007.)

Free software wounded it in the early 1990s. The Internet stabbed it again. But it was open source, in this decade, that struck the fatal blow.

Users under 25 may be unaware of what I am talking about. Let me explain how the scam worked.

  1. I have this black box. It does tricks. I sell you the tricks it does with fancy TV ads or in glossy magazine spreads. You want my black box. You want it bad.
  2. I will let you use a copy of the black box, but I will not sell it to you. I will take your money but you are not buying anything.
  3. All this is covered by an End User License Agreement (EULA), written in a form of elvish. You signed it when you ripped open the black box.
  4. The EULA states that the box may not work. The EULA states the box may do nothing. Regardless, I keep your money.
  5. The EULA says you can’t look in the black box and try to fix it. You can’t even see what’s inside. You might steal it. Maybe I will talk to you on the phone about it from India.
  6. Here is another black box. It fixes the first one, makes it better. It’s more stable. You need an upgrade, maybe a new computer, but you really, really want this black box. Seen the ad?
  7. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The black box EULA is descended from licenses IBM wrote in the 1950s, when computers filled great rooms and the value of calculating, say, the pay-outs for a horse race were worth a fortune.

Software was unstable then, even more so than now, and without the EULA companies like IBM might have been sued out of business by angry customers. The computer revolution may never have happened without the black box EULA.

Companies like Microsoft brought the black box EULA into the 1990s intact. Even though PCs were very reliable, even though software storage had become stable, and even though the creation of software was no longer a black art, the black box EULA remained.

The black box EULA made Bill Gates a billionaire 50 times over. It made many other people wealthy too, rich beyond their wildest schemes.

But the black box EULA was always hopelessly one-sided. It was unfair to customers. And lawyers could provide no help — they had written the black box EULA and were sworn to uphold it.

So folks like Richard Stallman struck a blow against wealth and said software should be free. Not only free but visible so you could see it, smell it, kiss it, touch it. Fix it, improve it. And they wrote their own license, which they dubbed copyleft.

The war against the black box EULA was on.

The free software folks won applause, but the people who needed complex black boxes were skeptical. They knew you couldn’t just give stuff away, that software writers need to eat, too. Even if Linus Torvalds was happy with hamburger while the customers ate steak, a way was needed to get him a hamburger. And a beer.

This is what I have now spent a half-decade covering. Open source is a transformation enabled by the Internet, born of righteous indignation, and driven home by hard-headed businessmen and women on both sides of major transactions.

So now you have an alternative to the black box. The makers of black boxes know they can’t hold customers to their EULAs forever. They have to compete with free. The eye of Gates has fallen. The age of men has begun.

The black box is now encased in plastic and steel. You can return an iPhone to the store. The EULAs are still there, and they retain their legal weight, but they no longer control the market.

It’s a good time, at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, to look back from these heights and see what has been accomplished.

The black box EULA no longer has the power to cloud mens’ minds. It is dead as a controlling force in the software world. You can open the box, see what’s inside. You are free to tinker with it, to freely connect with it, and you no longer think of it as a black box that holds all light, but as a physical product, with a warranty.

There are obligations on both sides. It’s a fairer and more just software world. It’s worth celebrating this Thanksgiving.

Happy Turkey Day.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

106
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Nonsense!
SpikeyMike 17th Dec 2009
If you are the end user of GPL'd software, the GPL doesn't apply to you. Hence, it is not a EULA.

End User License Agreement. See? GPL has nothing to do with what an EULA is.

Clear enough now?
0 Votes
+ -
Nonsense. Just look at Psystar.
GuidingLight 25th Nov 2009
They died by the EULA. The judge even brought that up.

And open source software has an EULA of its own, telling you exactlly what you can and must do to be able to use the software.

Any failure to follow the EULA/GPL allows the owner of the open source software the ability to pull your rights to use the software.

Trading a black box for a grey one really is not close to what you are describing.
0 Votes
+ -
Bad example.
bjbrock 25th Nov 2009
I have five Linux servers running here. I can open them up, look inside, touch and feel. I can even change what's inside. This is what the author is talking about. There is a EULA but it isn't a "black box" EULA.

Psystar tried selling someones work that wasn't open.
0 Votes
+ -
Me thinks you missed the OP's point...
Wolfie2K3 25th Nov 2009
His point was that the Black Box EULA (in this case, the one that comes with OSX) is alive and well and is still sharp enough to kill.

And for what it's worth, the author wasn't referring to hardware. You CAN open your Dell or HP servers and look inside, touch, feel, etc and even install new hardware.

This article is about the software.

And on that note, the author is dropping LSD or something. Maybe it's "shrooms".. Either way, whatever hallucinogenic he's been ingesting seems to make him think that both Windows and OSX are dead. Funny, last I looked, Windows and OSX were still the #1 and #2 operating systems on the planet. And Linux was far, far from any sort of dominance.

Put this article down as being yet another "Year of Linux on the desktop" post.

Wishful thinking on his part, nothing more.
0 Votes
+ -
GPL is not a EULA
wolf_z 25th Nov 2009
It's the *opposite* of a EULA. It isn't a license to *use*, it's a license to *copy*. happy The GPL specifically says it has no bearing on you *using* the software, only if you change it and distribute your changes does it bind you.

A EULA in effect says you can't do A, B, and C, it takes *away* rights copyright law would otherwise give you.

A copyright license like the GPL says you *can* do A, B, and C because the copyright owner is giving you *additional* rights beyond those denied you by law.

Don't be fooled by the word "license" in the EULA, a EULA is a contract, the GPL really is a license.
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you Wolf_z
Ole Man 26th Nov 2009
I was about to tell him to spin it right, no fair cheating.

The GPL is not about what the "user" can do with the code, but it IS about what must be distributed IF it is to be distributed. In other words, it prevents snitching someone else's work and claiming (selling) it as your own.

Of course lawyers must itimize and detail every nuance in lawyereze, but that is the gist of the matter.
0 Votes
+ -
What 1984 Double-Speak!
Patanjali 28th Nov 2009
Stop trying to pretend that the GPL is intrinsically different from a EULA.

You still do not OWN the software but are entitled to use it, with some restrictions and obligations.
0 Votes
+ -
Nonsense!
SpikeyMike 17th Dec 2009
If you are the end user of GPL'd software, the GPL doesn't apply to you. Hence, it is not a EULA.

End User License Agreement. See? GPL has nothing to do with what an EULA is.

Clear enough now?
0 Votes
+ -
re: Nonsense. Just look at Psystar.
none none 26th Nov 2009
And open source software has an EULA of its own, telling you exactlly what you can and must do to be able to use the software.

This statement betrays a lack of understanding of the GPL.

GPL is a copyright license. It permits things like posting someone else's work on your website for all and sundry to download at will. Or using someone else's work in a device like a wireless router and selling the device on your website.

In short, it covers uses not included in what's commonly understood to be 'end use.' It covers uses that are copyright infringements absent permission from the copyright holder.

If you truly are an end user of GPL software the GPL doesn't apply to you. Hence, it is not a EULA.

The black box EULA in the article, the kind used by MS, Apple and others, do apply to end users. Big difference between the two and they shouldn't be confused as similar. They are completely different animals.





happy
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Death of the black box EULA
debc19 25th Nov 2009
So you don't like Indians? Downright racist.
or whatever.

If by your standards most people are racists so be it.
Btw im not racist. ethnocentric maybe but not
racist . did you ever had to call support
services in India Adobe ,linksys, Dell

first there english is not bad its awful ,
they follow all the rules they are not there
too help you and help you fix a problem ....
they follow rules ...

the best part is that they tell you they are in
texas and there name is Kevin .....

2 hour to fix a licence problem when you have
23 licence to fix ..... do the math .

Its not because they are indian its because
some idiotic moron CEO choose to send support
services to off shore. where they are pay 6$ a
week ...... that the bad thing ...

Try to fix something with someone who cannot
speak clearly and make Apu in the simpson
sound genuine ....


There nothing Racist here its pure logic .

0 Votes
+ -
Just playing with you. Your English is very bad. Try a different translator!
0 Votes
+ -
Oddly enough...
Wolfie2K3 25th Nov 2009
I have dealt with tech support from India... In fact, I've dealt with them a few times - and all I can say, it depends on the tech.

Some of those Indian guys are just freakin' brilliant. You tell them the problem and they've got you fixed and back up and running in no time.

And they won't be telling you they're name is Kevin from Texas. Every time I've called, they've told me their name - and that they're from somewhere in India, or Singapore.

If the guy's name is Kevin and he says he's from Texas, he just might be. Dell still maintains plenty of support people right here in the country (doubt they're sending guys with Texan twangs to India just to do support)...
0 Votes
+ -
Regardless of where it takes place or who is providing it. The "support" people are the lowest paid, least knowledgeable people in any company.
0 Votes
+ -
Once upon a time, tech support people were looked upon as gods. Why? We were able to walk a customer through a command prompt and correct their software issue. We could ask them to life their desktop inches off of the table, and droop it to re-seat an expansion card. We could show up with a swiss army knife, and fix a half-million dollar UNIX box in 20 minutes (I've done that several times).

Why the decline? IMO, Silicon Valley folks are a large part of it. Pre-Netscape, we were underpaid, but appreciated. We got too greedy. Signing bonuses for software support reps? Yeah, I got some back in the day. Now? You talk (or chat, as I do) with Bangalor, or Manilla, and figure out soon enough whether this person knows their elbow from a hole in the ground.

On this Thanksgiving Day, I am grateful that I rarely need support except for license issues. I help my friends & family and the occasional stranger in a Dunkin Donuts sometimes. Damn wi-fi... LOL
0 Votes
+ -
I understand !
mKind 25th Nov 2009
With your English, I am not surprised that the Indian tech support couldn't help you to fix your problems.
0 Votes
+ -
ASSumptions
fletchoid 26th Nov 2009
This reminds me of the icy January day when I had to call Microsoft tech support to get help with a reauthorization of a license for a repair I was doing. I was connected to "Bill" who did his best impression of Apu from the Simpsons, as he tried to solve my problem. As I sat and listened to the raging blizzard buffeting my house, waiting "Bill's" manager to decide something, I asked "Bill" how the weather was where he was, expecting a description of a beautiful warm humid day in Calcutta. His response was (add Apu accent) "It is snowing like crazy here, I am not sure how I will be getting home!" Puzzled, I asked him where he was... he was in Windsor Ontario, freezing his butt off just like me. So much for ASSumption.
0 Votes
+ -
India as a popular support outsourcing country
Patanjali Updated - 28th Nov 2009
Unlike some, I find the Indians to speak very clearly and politely.

The problem is not with them per se, but with the assumption that outsourcing support to anyone who does not have any idea of the products with which they are working is the same as using those who actually have used the products.

What happens is that the support relies very heavily on standard scripts and sticking to them like glue, even if you are ringing for a second or third time about the same problem.

Also, they do not actually have any 'technical' people, so they will avoid anything that is not covered by script.

We used to have mobile phones from 3 (Hutchinson/Orange), but calling support used to be a real tedium, so much so that the last few times, I refused to repeat steps that I had already been through.

Now we are with Telstra, where a support has people who have actualy used the phones and they will even put you through to a real tech person who will interactively (that is, not to script) guide you through to solution.

The issue comes because support is seen as a necessary evil and so is subject to getting the cheapest solution that ticks the box, regardless of how effective it is.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Death of the black box EULA
Loverock Davidson 25th Nov 2009
Um... free software has a EULA as well. I'm not sure what you were getting at with this post but all software has a EULA. Although it may not be a black box the EULA is still there.
0 Votes
+ -
Umm... did you read the entry?
qcesarjr@... 25th Nov 2009
I mean, you put in exactly what he said, as if he
had said something different. He said: the "Black
Box EULA" is dead. D-E-D. Not: "ALL EULA are
dead."
0 Votes
+ -
I did
Loverock Davidson 25th Nov 2009
But he is implying that somehow the open source EULA is better than any other EULA, almost to the degree where he thinks it doesn't exist. That is simply not the case.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Not really
Mitch 74 25th Nov 2009
The GPL can be considered an EULA, inasmuch as someone could get a piece of GPLicensed software and not redistribute it (he is a de-facto end user).

However, and this is where the difference lies, an End User License Agreement by definition entails a non redistribution clause (something that the GPL actually prevents: 'copyleft' as opposition to copyright): End User, the last one to get the product (after software maker, OEM, distributor: End User, end of distribution chain).

You are NOT allowed to modify, disassemble, redistribute any part of a Windows system covered by the EULA. It works as-is, you take our (MS) word at face value, if it doesn't do what you want, tough: you won't fix it; maybe we will. For a price. You can't look into it, it's a black box, that's what the EULA tells you. You don't agree, then the license is void: don't use the software.

On the other hand, open source software (be it GPL, MIT, Apache or BSD) for which you get the license (GPL is a given, Apache pretty much too, MIT and BSD are more tricky here) actually encourages you to look inside the box (mind, though, that you don't HAVE to): so it's not a black box. Moreover, you can use the software: that's one thing, but you can also redistribute it: you're not an End User any more.

And this is what's gone mainstream: the black box EULA isn't the only choice on the market, 'copyleft' licenses can be found on computers at retail, on mobile devices, on appliances... Not only on servers or DIY boxes. The whole market.

Please note that I speak about license here, not those pieces of software covered by them: if you'd rather use GNU/Linux, or GNU/Hurd, or PC-BSD, or Minix, or OpenSolaris, or, heck, RockBox, it doesn't matter: you're not stuck to an EULA-covered black box.
0 Votes
+ -
A long, meandering post
frgough 25th Nov 2009
that basically boils down to:

Black Box EULA allows me to sell software.

The Open Source EULA forbids me from selling software.

Because capitalism is evil, the Open Source EULA is morally superior.
0 Votes
+ -
100% wrong!
Ole Man 26th Nov 2009
What he was trying to tell you (in a convulated way, I admit) that the GPL allows the "user" to do whatever he pleases (including copying, selling, giving away, or paying somebody to take it) with the code, as long is it is passed on exactly as he (the "user") recieved it, along with any changes made to it, when and IF it is distributed.

I am not a lawyer, as I am sure you can tell. lawyers don't speak "plain" or "simple". They only speak lawyereze. Doublespeak.
0 Votes
+ -
re: A long, meandering post
none none 26th Nov 2009
Wow. What fevered imagination produced that post? Scary!

Black Box EULA allows me to sell software.

The Open Source EULA forbids me from selling software.


Like my kids say, we're entering Upsidedown Town. You have that exactly backwards.


Because capitalism is evil, the Open Source EULA is morally superior.

There isn't a shred of evidence this is what the OP meant. Clearly this was added by whatever color glasses you see things through.

But I take issue with your implication that copyright licenses are incompatible with capitalism. How do you think Apple obtains the right to distribute songs on itunes?





happy
0 Votes
+ -
re: Not really
none none 26th Nov 2009
The GPL can be considered an EULA, inasmuch as someone could get a piece of GPLicensed software and not redistribute it (he is a de-facto end user).

No. That user is not restricted in any way by the GPL. It doesn't apply.


However, and this is where the difference lies, an End User License Agreement by definition entails a non redistribution clause...

Maybe they do, I wouldn't know, but if so it would be superfluous. You can't legally redistribute software whether or not that clause is in the EULA.




happy
0 Votes
+ -
EULA vs GPL
1djk1 25th Nov 2009
Maybe you should take some time and actually read the Open Source GPL. You might find it interesting, especially when compared to Microsoft's EULA.
0 Votes
+ -
Maybe I already have
Loverock Davidson 25th Nov 2009
and wouldn't agree to such terms as the GPL, even though it is a EULA.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
No, it's not
Michael Kelly 25th Nov 2009
It does not restrict an end user. It restricts a distributor. So it's a distributor's license, not an end user's license.
0 Votes
+ -
Same thing
Loverock Davidson 25th Nov 2009
And on top of the GPL the developer usually adds in the license of "Use at your own risk, I hold no responsibility for what you do with this software"
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
It is not the same thing
Michael Kelly Updated - 25th Nov 2009
Most people do not distribute software, so there are no restrictions on what they do.

And as far as warranties and protection, you are correct in most cases, and yes that should be a determining factor in your decisions. But do EULA's offer the same? In most cases, absolutely not.
0 Votes
+ -
A distinction without a difference
frgough 25th Nov 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
re: A distinction without a difference
none none 26th Nov 2009
Brilliant! That's like saying renting and owning is a distinction without a difference.

I think not.

But take heart, you are not alone. Loverock Davidson agrees with you, and lends the enormity of his credibility to the argument that a copyright license and software leasing contract are the same things.

Good luck with that.





happy
0 Votes
+ -
Uhh...Microsoft owns your work if you accept their EULA. THAT'S black box!
No More Microsoft Software Ever! Updated - 25th Nov 2009
IMNSHO! (NT)
0 Votes
+ -
Wishful thinking only.
No_Ax_to_Grind 25th Nov 2009
The "other" black box that you gt to kiss also has its own strings attached, anything you do with it you have to give away.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't HAVE to give it away
Michael Kelly 25th Nov 2009
You can keep everything on your own box and not have to worry about such things. That's what most people do anyway.
This is the most foolish statement that I read in this forum
0 Votes
+ -
What are you talking about
Wintel BSOD Updated - 25th Nov 2009
"Have to give away", what?

No doubt you'll come up with something ridiculous.
0 Votes
+ -
Strangely
daengbo 26th Nov 2009
And, yet, strangely,
a) Google uses GPLed software all over the
place, modified to hell and back,
b) We don't have access to very much of it (i.e.
they didn't give it back), and
c) No one is suing Google over it.
Followed by
d) Red Hat doesn't seem to give anything in RHEL
away (as in for free). People pay through the
nose for the software.

It must be that you are wrong, especially
considering that the GPL is not the only Open
Source license. Many allow you to take open
code, modify it, and close the changes up.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Death of the black box EULA
wizard57m@... 25th Nov 2009
I think it's a bit premature to proclaim the EULA dead. One might say it has been weakened,
but even that is questionable. Here's a test:

Your mission, if you choose to accept it...grab any proprietary software currently available, makes no difference, be it an operating system, office suite, photo editing, or presentation creation/document creator. The software must be a "paid for" version, complete with EULA...read it, accept it, etc.
Next, take the software, install it...then crack it. Change it to do something you think is better, or do a better job. Now, post your derivative work as some improved version...then wait to see if you receive any feedback from the original copywrite holder's legal department.
Better yet, after you farkle with the software and you have everything FUBAR, send correspondence to the company requesting help with your "new and improved by you" version!

Yes, there are open source alternatives to some things, and many find them adequate. For others, nay I would say, the majority of users, copywritten software is not an issue, they just want things to work.

The EULA has been weakened by the realities of "global enforcement", international boundaries form a barrier to legal procedures...not impossible, but a barrier. As others have pointed out, even free software has a EULA, and OSS has GPL.
0 Votes
+ -
"they just want things to work"
Ole Man 26th Nov 2009
That is not all that "they" want.

Most people ("they") want to be able to use a product that they (the "user") paid for as they please without continual hounding by the producer surveiling the product in an attempt to prove they stole it and force them to pay for it again.

A fact which the legal doublespeak of the EULA seeks to hide. So most people ("they") don't know the facts (yet). But they ARE learning (slowly). That is why the "EULA has been weakened".
0 Votes
+ -
the end is comming for M$
Linux Geek 25th Nov 2009
just as I predicted for years
0 Votes
+ -
Lawl
samalie 25th Nov 2009
M$? Really? I thought that the "$" crap died out years ago.

Microsoft, despite all our geeky wishes to the contrary, will never die. They may change, they may adapt, they may even someday be forced to do some sorts of open-source in their software to compete with free-as-in-how-much-is-your-support-contract Linux, but you're delusional to think that they'll die.
0 Votes
+ -
You obviously are lying or have not used the internet for years.
No More Microsoft Software Ever! Updated - 25th Nov 2009
M$ is still a highly used acronym for 'Microsoft the Money Maker above user supporter'.

Yes, M$ will never die. But they MUST be separated into multiple companies so they can not leverage their OS business to gain share in others.

THIS will happen. I think that is the meaning behind the popular 'M$ will die' statements. The single corporation will die and become many.
0 Votes
+ -
M$ isn't highly used,
rtk 25th Nov 2009
except by ABMers thinking it makes them look cool and edgy, when it really just makes them look like a moronic troll.

The single corporation is not going anywhere either, despite the monthly claims to the contrary.

The only thing dead and dying is the "this is the year of the Linux desktop" dream.



  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
So much for rtk M$ moneybags
Wintel BSOD 25th Nov 2009
Tell us about the picture of Gordon Gekko on your greedhead wall...

lol... grin
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think so
Wintel BSOD 25th Nov 2009
Must be all the canuck gas you blow out.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
the end is comming for M$
1djk1 25th Nov 2009
Not for a loooong time. They will change and adapt, maybe even come out with a good operating system, but go away and die, I don't think so.
0 Votes
+ -
See my post directly above. (NT)
No More Microsoft Software Ever! 25th Nov 2009
NT

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix