[leecb]

> those inane licenses no one reads, do we really want them to legally binding?

What all would be possible if software EULAs weren't legally binding?

One thing that EULAs typically do is reduce liability for the company producing the software. Imagine if Google/Apple were liable for damages from all the miscommunications caused by autocorrect?

[chongli]

There’s a difference between clauses in an EULA that release the software vendor from liability and those that impose additional liability on the user. I think it’s perfectly fine for an EULA or “non-warranty warranty” to be included in open source software. If a person or a company wants to release software and they should be able to do so without being held liable for damages caused by the user’s improper use of the software.

On the other hand, if a click-through license can expose users to a potential lawsuit then that fundamentally changes the regime we all live in. It creates a world where the countless pieces of software we all use on a daily basis become hidden legal threats, lurking in the shadows like so many snakes waiting to strike. That’s not a world I want to live in and I think most HNers would agree.

[roblabla]

EULAs are also used to protect IP, such as by prohibiting reverse engineering. Preventing reverse engineering would prevent modding games, fixing bugs in software that aren't supported anymore, security analysis, etc... In my view, it'd be a net negative for society.