Another cheap eval board - this time with bullshit license agreement

[mikeselectricstuff]

ST eval board

The most ridiculous license agreement - you don'teven own the board, apparently. So laughable it makes you want to buy some and stick them on ebay.

I suspect this has come from their Legal dept to cover liabiliuty under various EU directives for finished products, but pleeze...

                     EVALUATION PRODUCT LICENSE AGREEMENT

By   using   this   Evaluation   Product,   You   are   agreeing  to   be   bound   by   the   terms   and
conditions of this agreement. Do not use this Evaluation Product until You have read
and  agreed  to   the   following   terms  and   conditions.   The   use   of   the   Evaluation  Product
implies automatically the acceptance of the following terms and conditions.

I'd like to see that one going to court...

LICENSE.          STMicroelectronics         (“ST”)     grants    You    the   right   to  use    the   enclosed
evaluation board only to evaluate and test ST products, including any incorporated and/or
accompanying demonstration software, components and documentation (collectively, the
“Evaluation       Product”)      solely   only    for   your   evaluation      and   testing    purposes.     The
Evaluation Product shall not be, in any case, directly or indirectly assembled as a part in
any production of Yours as it is solely developed to serve evaluation purposes and has no
direct   function   and   is   not   a   finished   product.   

EVALUATION   PRODUCT   STATUS.   The   Evaluation   Product   allows   You   only   to
evaluate and test the ST products. You are not authorized to use the Evaluation Product in
any   production   system,   and   may   not   be   offered   for   sale   or   lease,   or   sold,   leased   or
otherwise      distributed.    If  the   Evaluation     Product     is  incorporated     in  a   demonstration
system,   the   demonstration   system   may  be   used   by  You  solely  for   your   evaluation   and
testing purposes. Such demonstration system may not be offered for sale or lease or sold,
leased   or   otherwise   distributed   and   must   be   accompanied   by   a   conspicuous   notice   as
follows: “This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased or
otherwise distributed”.

OWNERSHIP             AND      COPYRIGHT.           Title   to  the   Evaluation     Product,     demonstration
software, related documentation and all copies thereof remain with ST and/or its licensors.

RESTRICTIONS. You may not sell, assign, sublicense, lease, rent or otherwise distribute
the Evaluation Product for commercial purposes (unless you are an authorized ST distributor
provided      that   all  the   other    clauses    of   this   EVALUATION            PRODUCT         LICENSE
AGREEMENT            shall   apply   entirely),  in  whole    or  in  part,  or  use   Evaluation    Product    in
production   system.   Except   as   provided   in   this   Agreement   or   in   the   Evaluation   Product’s
documentation, You may not reproduce the demonstration software or related documentation,
or modify, reverse engineer, de-compile or disassemble the demonstration software, in whole
or in part.

You   warrant   to   ST   that   the   Evaluation   Product   will  be   used   and   managed   solely
and   exclusively   in   a   laboratory   by   skilled   professional   employees   of   Yours   with proven  expertise  in  the   use   and    management   of   such   products and that the
Evaluation  Product shall    be   used    and     managed       according       to  the    terms     and
conditions       set   forth   in   the   related   documentation         provided   with       the   Evaluation
Product.

[Time]

This is uncommon?  From what I gather it just sounds like they don't want it to be included in commercially produced devices which does not seem too crazy to me.

[Rhythmtech]

I believe legalese is often ambiguous and vague in order to allow lawyers to not really do anything constructive or tangible and allow courts to determine what the license actually means.  This is often why so many times technology is subverted by law. Law cannot be expected to understand the intent of technology, the designers, the engineers, or the users. So you end up with lawyers writing blanket crap to cover their asses and delay the process until real circumstances arise to be resolved and determined in a court, setting precedence which may not represent a majority.

[TheWelly888]

If you ever wake up in intensive care unit of your local hospital after a near fatal car crash, would you be reassured if the life support system hooked up to you has one of those cheap evalution boards inside it doing something critical?

Hmmm, thought not!  

It appears reasonable to me, after all it's only to allow the develoment team to become familiar with the device before incorporating the device in production equipment.

[mikeselectricstuff]

If you ever wake up in intensive care unit of your local hospital after a near fatal car crash, would you be reassured if the life support system hooked up to you has one of those cheap evalution boards inside it doing something critical?

That has nothing to do with the eval board supplier - only the manufacturer of the equipment.

The ridiculous thing is that someone was paid to write this bullshit but nobody is ever going to pay any attention to it.
And the clause about ST retaining title to the hardware is probably not even legal in most countries. You can buy this at Digikey without agreeing to any such term.

And I bet the lawyer(s) who came up with this crap get paid a ton more than the guys who designed it.

[Zero999]

I'm pretty sure that some of the clauses are illegal in the EU, such as the one about not allowing resale. I've I opened a car dealership but when I sold the cars I included a clause in the contract saying the car can't be resold, I wonder how far I'd get in court?

When you buy some software, you're not really buying but buying a licence (read lease) which has certain terms and conditions attached to it. The only way I think anyone could actually implement this with a physical item is by leasing it not selling it, in which case the contract would clearly state that it's the case.

[Rhythmtech]

If you ever wake up in intensive care unit of your local hospital after a near fatal car crash, would you be reassured if the life support system hooked up to you has one of those cheap evalution boards inside it doing something critical?

Hmmm, thought not!  

It appears reasonable to me, after all it's only to allow the develoment team to become familiar with the device before incorporating the device in production equipment.

It's all relativistic to how expansive you feel reasonable is. To counter your example, I believe it is reasonable that standards and standards agencies dictate how a piece of medical equipment is built and not license agreements. It would fall to the standards agencies and manufacturer to ensure that they are not using eval boards for heart monitors etc...

The point I was making is that since legal matters are settled in courts and not in labs, non technical legal experts determine what is "fair" to say is acceptable use of a piece of equipment they are completely unfamiliar with. License agreements that are vague and indeterminate leave doors open for courts to set incorrect precedence.

[Bored@Work]

They had the same junk license for the STM8s-Discovery. I thing Dave wrote about it in some blog comment.

And in my book that license is beyond stupidity and on asshole level. Or written by someone who was hit over the head. Repeatedly. 

How can they claim ownership to the board when you bought it? How dare they want to dictate what you can do with your property and what you can't. It is non of their business to dictate this after they have been paid. This is just a lame attempt to protect their business. They maybe sell this at a loss, but that is their problem. Their business strategy is not my problem.

And if you look closely, you aren't even allowed to use it at all after you bought it. You have to have skilled professional employees and a laboratory:

You   warrant   to   ST   that   the   Evaluation   Product   will  be   used   and   managed   solely
and   exclusively   in   a   laboratory   by   skilled   professional   employees   of   Yours ...

Thank you very much, I can't afford to hire any skilled professional employees (I am a skilled professional hired by others, I am not Bill Gates).

[alm]

This about covering their ass against liability. If some idiot pokes themselves in the eye with a header, they can claim that the person was not trained in how to handle headers. By claiming it's just a professional tool, they exclude all kind of consumer protection laws. Can't really blame them in the current sue-happy climate in the US. I believe the flier included with the MSP430 Launchpad included similar language about only used in a professional lab.

Prohibiting the use in finished products is probably because they sell the boards at loss, and don't want someone buying thousands of them because it's cheaper than separate parts. But I don't like it either, anything you sell me becomes my property, and I can do with it whatever I like: I can use it for any purpose, break it, hack it, modify it, resell it or injure myself with it.

[Bored@Work]

Wait a minute. They deny you ownership. So if an accident happens it is still their board, and they, not you, should be responsible ... It is their board and they didn't properly supervise you.

I would love to see this license in front of a court, and a judge asking STM about denying ownership, denying you to enjoy your property and making it effectively impossible to use (unless skilled professionals in a lab employed by you ...).

[KTP]

anything you sell me becomes my property, and I can do with it whatever I like: I can use it for any purpose, break it, hack it, modify it, resell it or injure myself with it.

This is not really true in software or media (books, songs, movies).  I guess you can break most of those, but there are limits on how you can modify it, copy it, resell it, etc.  I am not sure why hardware designers should have fewer rights about their design than a book or song writer.

[alm]

This is not really true in software or media (books, songs, movies).  I guess you can break most of those, but there are limits on how you can modify it, copy it, resell it, etc.  I am not sure why hardware designers should have fewer rights about their design than a book or song writer.

Note that I didn't mention copying, since this is covered under copyright law. There's no law (in most countries) against cutting a book in pieces, putting a CD/DVD in the blender, using CDs to decorate a room or using a book to stop a table from wobbling. This isn't legally the case for software because the crap they pull about not selling the software but merely a license to use it. It's hard to claim that you didn't buy the hardware if they offer it for sale with a big buy button.

In my opinion, software and book authors shouldn't have the right to dictate how to use it either, so extending this to hardware would be even worse. Imagine Fluke dictating that you can't buy their cheap products if you can afford the more expensive ones, or that you are not allowed to use an industrial meter for electronics design. It's the designers job to design the equipment, not to tell the users what to do with it. New inventions are born by using products in novel and unintended ways. If they could, reusing parts from broken electronics would surely be prohibited, as would repairing it unless you're authorized by the manufacturer.

[KTP]

So I should legally be able to modify the DRM on the ebook I bought on B&N that won't work on my Sony reader?  Can I sell the ebook after I strip the DRM, if I only sell the one copy (that I bought)?

[alm]

So I should legally be able to modify the DRM on the ebook I bought on B&N that won't work on my Sony reader?  Can I sell the ebook after I strip the DRM, if I only sell the one copy (that I bought)?

You should, in my opinion, but that doesn't mean you can , since I'm not a judge, so my opinion carries little weight. I often refuse to buy DRM'ed content or request unprotected copies (which sometimes succeeds), so I don't see a problem with DRM being broken. As long as you don't sell multiple copies or keep a copy for myself, the publisher is not losing money compared to a physical book. I like software companies (I think Borland used to) that treat a software license like a book: you can install it on multiple computers or let others use it, as long as you don't run multiple copies at the same time. The rules for 'soft' items like software, ebooks and electronic music distribution appear to be different than physical items, because the publishers now have more power and money invested than they had back when books were invented, or even when copyrights were invented.

[Zero999]

I believe that the clause denying resale of software, music or ebooks is invalid in the EU. I remember hearing something about the record, software and film companies not being happy about people buying their products and donating them to charity shops where they can be sold cheaply but I don't think they got very far as cheap CD, videos, DVDs etc. can still be purchased in charity shops in the UK.

To paraphrase what I was saying before: when you buy a book, DVD or CD, the only thing you own is the piece of paper or plastic, the text or 0s and 1s still remain property of the author or developer. You only have a lease which means you can use it in accordance with the terms and conditions but don't own it.

Software licences have evolved the way they have to stop companies from buying one copy and installing it on 1000 of their computers. A similar thing has happened to DVDs to stop theatres from buying a copy, showing it to 1000s of people, charging them £££ and only giving the studio the price of the DVD.

If you want to resell your ebook then don't buy one with DRM. If you live in an jurisdiction which prohibits the circumvention of DRM then don't do it, unless it's just for personal use, otherwise there's a good chance you'll get caught.

In the case of the evaluation board, as far as ST is concerned, it seems as though buying it does not mean you own it; you just have a lease which sets down certain terms and conditions for how you use it, break them and they'll take you to court, then whether you actually own the board and can do what you like with it, will be determined by a load of lawyers and a judge who could decide either way.

[Rhythmtech]

All I am going to say is that I am infinitely happy Newton, Gauss, Maxwell, and many other scientists, mathematicians, and engineers of the past spent more time trying to share their work than keep someone else from using it.

In the early years of the USA, printing houses often funded themselves and local fledgling authors of the time like Nathaniel Hawthorne with additional funds made by reprinting works by English authors without paying royalties.

Microsoft Windows is the worlds most widespread because it was ironically stolen most often.