blocks|key|1615508|text|不同之处在于，您购买的是使用软件的许可证，而不是软件本身(软件公司仍然拥有)。EULA规定了使用软件的方法。当你租借东西(例如房子)、租赁设备等时，也会有类似的协议。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1615509|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

The difference is that you are purchasing a license to use software, not the software itself (which the software company still owns). The EULA stipulates the method with which you can use the software. Similar agreements are in place when you rent things (e.g. a home), lease equipment, etc.

blocks|key|1615543|text|这取决于EULA的确切措辞。通常，它是为了加强现有的法律，例如版权，通过直接告知用户复制程序是非法的。它还增加了其他限制，如禁止反向工程，限制知识产权。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1615544|附加条款可能包括“不得用于核项目”或类似条款。这仅仅涵盖了开发人员的基础，因为核系统开发人员在没有进行极端数量的研究的情况下，极不可能使用非实时、未经批准的系统。|1615545|进一步的条款可能会限制某些类别的用户，例如军事或政府，这是开发商强烈反对的。|1615546|至于哪个软件有第一个EULA，我不知道。|1615547|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$]]

It depends on the exact wording of the EULA. Often, it's written to reinforce existing laws, such as copyright, by directly informing the user that it's unlawful to copy the program. It also adds on other restrictions such as no reverse engineering, restricting the intellectual property.

Additional clauses may include "not to be used in nuclear projects" or similar. This is merely covering the developer's bases, as it is extremely unlikely that a nuclear system developer would use a non-realtime, non-approved system without extreme amounts of research.

A further clause could restrict certain classes of users, such as military or government, which the developer feels strongly against.

As for which software had the first EULA, I have no idea.

blocks|key|1400861|text|从技术上讲，汽车和枪支都有类似EULA的东西。我们只称它们为“许可证”。你必须了解他们的操作限制和规则，然后进行一些测试，并签署一些文件。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1400862|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Cars and guns technically have something like a EULA... we just call them "licenses". You have to learn the limitations and rules of their operation, then take some tests and sign some papers.

blocks|key|1400911|text|没有人提到提供者的义务，这通常也在EULA中。如果我让你的软件成为我公司基础设施的关键部分，而你破产了，我希望我能拿到我的代码，这样你的失败就不会导致我的失败。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1400912|正如有人所说，这更类似于租赁协议，而不是购买协议，这就是为什么与枪的类比并不真正适用。|1400913|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

Nobody has mentioned the obligations of the provider, which are often in the EULA too. If I make your software a critical piece of my corporate infrastructure and you go bust I want to be able to get my hands on the code so your failure doesn't precipitate mine.

As someone said, this is more akin to a rental agreement than a purchase agreement, which is why the analogy with a gun does not really apply.

blocks|key|1400966|text|当你在射击场使用枪时，你不需要签署某种形式的豁免或弃权书吗？逻辑是相似的。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1400967|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

When you use a gun at a firing range, don't you have to sign some type of release or waiver? The logic is similar.

blocks|key|1401054|text|EULA被设计为传达或限制“使用”权利的合同，因此得名为“最终用户许可协议”。它与版权没有更多的关系，就像我与银行签订的抵押贷款合同一样。这就是为什么压缩许可证的合法性是值得怀疑的。这是一份只有在你购买产品后才能阅读的合同。从这里的许多回复中可以清楚地看出，绝大多数人并没有理解版权并不延伸到“使用”权利的想法。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|1401055|一位网友写道：“实际上，这本书是你的，但这本书的版权不是。就像在软件中一样，您购买了物理介质，但受法律约束如何使用它。没有什么比事实更离谱的了。没有法律限制你如何使用这本书。作为销售的一部分，任何使用限制都必须得到您和零售商的同意。|1401056|想想看，在没有版权的情况下，复制和分发书籍将是完全合法的。一本书将是典型的有形财产，仅此而已。版权限制您合法复制和分发图书内容的能力。不需要额外的协议。版权决不会规定你如何使用你的书，版权法也不会赋予作者传达、限制或协商“使用”权利的权力。他们限制使用权的唯一方法是通过一个单独的合同，该合同必须作为销售或租赁的一部分完成。|1401057|关于GPL有一些混淆。GPL不是EULA。它是一种版权许可证，只要您遵守许可证的限制，就允许复制和分发内容。在没有GPL的情况下(假设您选择不接受)，您仍然可以使用软件，但版权法限制您复制或分发软件。|1401058|EULA的存在有多种目的。开发软件的公司希望协商出一种使他们处于最低风险并给予他们最大杠杆的立场。|1401059|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|L|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|M|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|N|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|O|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|6|7|P|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|J|3|-4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|K|$]]

An EULA is designed to be a contract that conveys or limits “usage” rights, hence the name End User Licensing Agreement. It has nothing more to do with a copyright than the mortgage loan contract that I have with my bank. That is why the legality of shrink-wrapped licenses is questionable. It is a contract that you do not get to read until after you purchase a product. It is clear from many responses here that the vast majority of people have not wrapped their heads around the idea the copyright does not extend to “usage” rights.

One responder wrote “Actually, the book is yours but the rights to the book are not. Just as in software, you purchased the physical media, but are bound by law on how you can use it.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no law that restricts how you can use the book. Any restriction on usage would have to be agreed upon by you and the retailer as part of the sale.

Consider that in the absence of copyright, the copying and distribution of books would be perfectly legal. A book would be typical tangible property and nothing more. Copyright limits your ability to legally copy and distribute the content of the book. No additional agreement is necessary. Copyright in no way dictates how you can use your book and copyright law does not convey to the author the power to convey, limit, or negotiate “usage” rights. The only way that they can limit usage rights is through a separate contract that would have to be completed as part of the sale or rental.

There was some confusion regarding the GPL. The GPL is not an EULA. It is a copyright license that permits copying and distribution of the content so long as you comply with the restrictions of the license. In absence of the GPL (say you choose not to accept it), you can still use the software, but you are restricted from copying or distributing the software by Copyright Law.

EULA exist for various purposes. Companies that develop software want to negotiate a position that puts them at the least risk and gives them maximum leverage.

This is the only product that I know that a consumer must agree to something that only lawyer can (something) understand. I'm sure car accidents kill more people each year than software accidents. But I don't sign anything like an EULA when I buy a car. 

So why does software have EULA? Were there a bad accident that triggered the need for software companies to protect themselves? (and what was the first software that had EULA?)

[Update] Just to clear my point: I don't understand why software have EULA. No other product that I can think of does (not even gun)! So what makes software different that this product needs some sort of "liability limitations"?

By the way, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eula" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a> says that "The legal status of shrink-wrap licenses in the US is somewhat unclear."

Why does software have EULA?

这是我所知道的唯一一种产品，消费者必须同意只有律师才能理解的东西。我敢肯定，每年死于车祸的人比死于软件事故的人还多。但是我买车的时候不会签任何像EULA这样的东西。那么为什么软件会有EULA呢？是不是发生了一起严重的事故，导致软件公司需要保护自己？(第一个拥有EULA的软件是什么？)更新只是为了澄清我的观点:我不明白为...

问为什么软件有EULA？
EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问为什么软件有EULA？EN

社区

活动

资源

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问为什么软件有EULA？
EN