The intent of the change to the VMware Player 5 EULA is to enable VMware's customers to legally run VMware Player for commercial use. Most people will comply with the rules if they can understand them. This problem can be greatly reduced by keeping the conditions of the licence simple and offering a clear and unambiguous summary of the EULA in terms people can actually understand alongside the legal jargon. This is greatly exacerbated by confusing EULAs and unclear announcements around them. There is the price, of course, but there is also the general hassle factor of working out what you are actually allowed to do with a licence and how you are supposed to demonstrate compliance. I think people making proprietary software licenses forget that there is more than one way to put off customers/users. I think it risks sending people away thinking that maybe a competing product that is unambiguously free would be an easier option which is obviously not what is wanted at all. What is really worrying is that even a guru/moderator/expert finds it confusing. I agree that the whole thing is confusing. I suspect purchasing a licence would be cheaper than the legal advice though. I guess you could diff the 5.0 EULA against the 4.0 one and, if you find EULAs as incomprehensible as most people do, seek legal advice on what it actually means. It may even be that this was always the case but nobody ever noticed. Recent announcements make me think that this is indeed the case. The question is not about features, it is about whether you are violating the EULA by using VMWare Player in any business context without purchasing the licence. You certainly have to buy the licence if you want to use the new restricted VMs feature but that is not the question.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |