EULA – End User License Agreements in Practice

Imagine I have two pieces of software that depend on each other, Software A and Software B. Both have EULAs, EULA A and EULA B. Now imagine I read EULA A, and while reading EULA B the a legal system changes EULA A (something that is a bit of a given in most EULAs now, modifications may be made at any time).

Can one say while reading EULA B with any certainty that they have effectively done their due diligence reading EULA A?

Can one say while reading EULA A with any certainty that they have effectively done their due diligence reading EULA B?

Systems and mechanisms that are in by design (IBD) that make capacity to do right by people, the public, have greater determinism and capacity to protect are limited on the common. We turn up systems (including legal systems) that profit a few in society while claiming due diligence, sufficient has been met.

Yet we are all basically a product of have to keep up and have to compete. Choosing not to be invested in technology and the future is consequential, yet complexity, by the systems we have generated have created a distinct version of claim due diligence while delivering non-deterministic behavior.

The combination is consequential, if EULA A and EULA B are always changing – which could be implemented by a system, a Legal system that relies upon software to deal with part of its workload. The system is not ideal leverage out, and has potential for time costs that approximate infinity. Yet corporations rely upon these documents as sound value delivered for sufficient throughput.

The more right answer might be for everyone in society (all 8 billion plus people) to divest completely. Yet since people cannot do that, cannot likely expect others to divest completely being divested is costly, more costly than one might imagine. The Bible says be perfect, yet with a system that amplifies like this I am not sure anyone sure ever claim to be more than LTI – less than ideal, LTISO – less than ideal sin out.

Finish re-reading EULA A after reading EULA B to find out EULA B has changed, re-read or deal with the many other problems plaguing the world like famine, disease, and homelessness. Time costs are in by design, are consequential in ways that break the Golden Rule.

The combination could be used against governments, systems that are trying to be more just and do more right by the people. Systems that rely upon ideal determinism are weaker than systems that do not is a bit of sad commentary that justice pursued more ideally might be less ideal justice.

Reading EULA A or EULA B might sound like ideal due diligence, or they might enable missing world events. Even if one reads them, do they have a degree in Law? No degree in Law consequential or not consequential, enabling people further with degrees in law through reinforcing less than ideal systems consequential or not consequential?

EULA A and EULA B might be less likely to change while one is working on them. But add in all the apps and programs people rely upon on a daily basis, and claim ideal determinism and known of legal contracts seems a bit of a farce. Collective guilt becomes true yet not actually discussed, a bit of everyone invests in less-than-ideal determinism so you don’t point out my wrong I won’t point out yours kind of back-room deal.

Now imagine our government loses trade ties with important countries that are involved in making software. Legalism and reduced dependence has potential to be turned up at non-ideal times and in non-ideal ways. Imagine one of those EULAs A or B has someone from the government inject a tuning fork into them like, if you agree with this agreement you are trading secrets to a foreign nation. Continued use equals acceptance, does not equal you know what you are accepting is a consequential system. Golden Rule to less of a requirement is a consequential system.

System that reinforces less than ideals that profit some over others while claiming knows and delivers at A (like in school grade A) level feels LTI – less-than-ideal. Pursuit of better justice should not be set to sufficient justice established or delivered.

Government funding is limited, corporations that profit have reasons to increase complexity past profitable ROI for government. Government can’t doesn’t upsold to sufficient. Reminder this is from a concerned citizen with an engineering degree, not a lawyer. Concerned engineers not listened to not the most ideal way to facilitate know, whistleblowers that might save lives – negate non-consequential.

People in Jail, Homeless on the streets can’t read this document, see how they have been wronged by systemic oppression – consequential or not consequential? Accessibility delivers LTI – less-than-ideally gets upsold to sufficient justice established and delivered. They need help more than others in society, not factor them into defense?