A "Large Hardware Vendor" Wants A EULA Displayed For Firmware Updates On Linux

[flower]

Sorry for putting my law hat on, but it is not that easy: They are only invalid if you haven't had the chance to view them before purchasing the license. This would be true for most software which was distributed on a physical medium, but if they honor this requirement with digital distribution services they could have become part of the contract. This doesn't mean that every clause is valid though, as the AGB-Kontrolle still limits what can be enforced by these EULAs.

that's true, but in this specific case where i download a firmware upgrade for my hardware it is *always* after that. so i am fine.

[rastersoft]

I'm already using their hardware, and the conditions should be no different of using the old firmware, so I don't see the point in having to agree an EULA.

[schmidtbag]

What's the point of an EULA saying "yes, I agree for this to be in English"? Why is that a problem for firmware? And more importantly, if you don't speak English, how are you supposed to understand what you are or aren't agreeing to?
This seems so pointless.

[microcode]

Yeah it seems like agreements of this sort are generally not binding in the first place. Tell NVIDIA to get with the program, like everyone else.

[Ardje]

Name of the vendor is required for me. I wish large vendor not to be:

Personally I would think NVidia. NVidia is a proprietary island, that happens to also be usable on linux with a gpl violation shim.
Or Qualcomm.
Samsung and Intel are 2 other big companies.
Unlike other vendors, Samsung has a long time problem of not being able to update their SSD's on platforms that are not Windows. Fortunately they actually do not require any update.
A company like OCZ just gives you a linux distribution to fix their SSD firmware problems.
There is also Dell and Supermicro, that both have servers. But dell servers are upgradable from linux anyway. Supermicro I don't know, the last time I upgraded a supermicro, it ended up lying on my desk for repair.

[torsionbar28]

This is total bullshit!
The only reason that comes to mind mind for someone wanting to do that is that they know they will implement spyware, backdoors and whatever other crapware and they want to take away the right of any user to sue them.
I never saw any EULA or TOS where you can say no and still use the software.
This is complete garbage.
Lucky that user who said that in Germany all EULA's are invalid.
That should be the case everywhere, not let these bastards use English-only, special selected words to trick the users that the crapware is for their own good.

Um, no. You are aware that the GPL v2 and GPL v3 are also EULA's, correct? So are MIT, Apache, and all of the open-source license agreements. Literally every piece of every Linux distro is covered by one EULA or another. There is nothing inherently bad about EULA's.

All this vendor is asking for, is that the user be prompted to explicitly accept it. I don't have a problem with that, especially since you already have to explicitly accept their EULA to download the firmware from their web site today.

[torsionbar28]

There is also Dell and Supermicro, that both have servers. But dell servers are upgradable from linux anyway. Supermicro I don't know, the last time I upgraded a supermicro, it ended up lying on my desk for repair.

My experience is the opposite - Dell firmware updates breaking the machine, while Supermicro FW update process is rock solid reliable.

[hughsie]

Redhat will have him implement this feature anyway

Red Hat won't make me do anything. In fact, my boss doesn't really want to show a EULA either...

[pegasus]

It's the same as option #2. No EULA fits in 2,000 characters :P

That's the point. It's a form of "politely saying no"

[bug77]

Red Hat won't make me do anything. In fact, my boss doesn't really want to show a EULA either...

But does this vendor have a reason for their request? Or is it just because?